[PATCH] XML validity of kcfg files

[Christian Mueller]

Am Samstag, 30. Oktober 2004 21:19 schrieb Zack Rusin:
> On Saturday 30 October 2004 14:59, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > Is there a valid reason for making this order mandatory, i.e. does
> > changing the order change the semantics? If not, then the DTD is IMO
> > too strict.
> 
> This dtd is documentation....
> 
> I'd say it doesn't work like that. But apperently the script and others 
> know better :)
> 
> So let me just take the liberty as someone who wrote this damn thing and 
> say what exactly it's for:
> - this dtd was meant to be loose documentation for the structure of kcfg 
> files while we were improving kconfig_compiler,
> - it was never meant to be used a strict validator,

Ok, that's good to know.  If there's no KDE-wide agreement that 
validated XMLs are a desirable goal I'll immediately stop messing with 
people's .kcfg files. 

Personally, I find DTDs pretty difficult to read and would have chosen 
a different format if this was only about documentation...


 
> Zack (who's starting to get very irritated by the all those clueless 
> scripts and people who believe the scripts over developers)

Christian 
(who thinks that it's a bad idea to publish a DTD 
(http://www.kde.org/standards/kcfg/1.0/kcfg.dtd), and even with a version
number > 0.9.9,  if you're not going to validate XMLs against it 
(this is not about some "clueless script", but about the XML standard!).  
But there really seems to have been a misunderstanding about what the DTD 
file means, and you just cleared that up.) 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20041030/94864f61/attachment.sig>