Peter Donald wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 17:32, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
>>>You have stated that Merlin can read the CK DTD so there should be no
>>>problem about interoperability. Any component that wants to interoperate
>>>will use the CK DTD.
>>>
>>>
>>Only as a subset.
>>Promoting containerkit DTD means that your obliging ever other container
>>to handle the special case of the blockinfo DTD and the containerkit DTD
>>while Phoenix conviniently ignores the Type DTD. Would it not be more
>>efficient if we all used the same DTD?
>>
>>
>
>It would be more efficient but it is unlikely to happen while you want to
>support stages/extensions. Removing them will basically end up with CK DTD.
>Thus I don't really see any issue with using the CK DTD. The components which
>need to be interoperable will use it, those that don't - wont.
>
The interest in supporting stages/extensions is a matter for Phoenix -
its not an argument for excluding content from the common DTD. Phoenix
could/should/can work perfectly with the Type DTD. The containerkit API
could/should/can be built with the type DTD. You cannot say the same
for the containerkit DTD. The resulting metainfo model is constrained by
the fact that containerkit does not provide the extensions declaration
and as such it's insuffient. In practice the issues rest with the
respective containers. When phoenix marshals a xinfo description it can
reject a componet declaring an extension - just as Merlin can
reject/ignore management access points. This is a very small overhead
relative to the benefit of a common DTD.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
