[PATCH] XML validity of kcfg files

Frans Englich frans.englich at telia.com
Sat Oct 30 21:18:45 BST 2004

On Saturday 30 October 2004 20:04, Christian Mueller wrote:
> 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.)

Zack surely wrote it with a documentation purpose, but XML files should be 
validated, and they should validate -- so let's change it such that we live 
up to your view on what schemas exists for. I'll follow up with an XML Schema 



More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list