[PATCH] XML validity of kcfg files

[Michael Pyne]

On Sunday 31 October 2004 02:52 am, Christian Mueller wrote:
> - Do we make the DTD (or XSD) more than just documentation?
>   Then we should validate somewhere in the process of code
>   generation, that's even better than having a cron job
>   report the errors.

Personally I'm in favor of making it such that the XML files can be validated, 
whether it is against the DTD or XSD.  History is replete with examples of 
times where lax syntax checking lead to problems later on.

For example, what if a certain flaw ui.rc file works only because of a bug in 
the XMLGUI system, which after being fixed breaks the invalid ui.rc file?  It 
would be easy enough to fix the file after it everything is said and done, 
but it would be better if it had never broken in the first place.  This is 
especially true for third party programs, for example, where we can't simply 
run a test script on CVS to catch occurrences of the newfound flaw.

> - Or do we leave everything as it is and live with invalid XMLs
>   which doesn't seem to be a problem (yet?).

Well I could live with this solution as well, it's the 'yet' that worries me 
though. ;)

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20041031/43209fa7/attachment.sig>