Alok,

On 10/01/10 16:35, Alok Aggarwal wrote:
Hi Dermot,

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Dermot McCluskey wrote:

No objection, but for clarity can you spell out exactly what changes
you are proposing to the schema.  It appears to me you are suggesting
something like this:

Current Schema (execution.dtd):
  <!ELEMENT kwargs (arg+)>

  <!ELEMENT arg (#PCDATA)>
  <!ATTLIST arg name CDATA #REQUIRED>

Proposed Schema:
  <!ELEMENT kwargs ((arg | arglist)+)>

  <!ELEMENT arg (#PCDATA)>
  <!ATTLIST arg name CDATA #REQUIRED>

  <!ELEMENT arglist (argitem+)>
  <!ATTLIST arglist name CDATA #REQUIRED>

  <!ELEMENT argitem (#PCDATA)>

Here are the changes that I've made to the execution
schema:

<!ELEMENT kwargs (arg*, arglist*)>

This implies that neither <arg> nor <arglist> may be present.
Is that what you intend?

My version requires that, if <kwargs> is present, then at least
one of <arg> or <arglist> must be specified.

<!ELEMENT arg (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST arg name CDATA #REQUIRED>

<!ELEMENT arglist (item*)>

This allows for there to be no <item> sub-elements.
I would have thought there should be at least one <item>
present if <arglist> is used?

- Dermot


<!ATTLIST arglist name CDATA #REQUIRED>

<!ELEMENT item (#PCDATA)>

- this implies that <arg> and <arglist> are not mutually exclusive and that you
can have either or both, multiple times (but must have at least one).
Is that correct?  eg:
  <kwargs>
      <arg name="foo">bar</arg>
      <arglist name="foo_list">
          <argitem>bar1</argitem>
          <argitem>bar2</argitem>
      </arglist>
      <arglist name="foo_list2">
          <argitem>bar3</argitem>
          <argitem>bar4</argitem>
      </arglist>
      <arg name="foo2">bar2</arg>
  </kwargs>

That is correct, that is what I'm intending with
the above changes.

- seeing as how we already have "args", "arg" and "kwargs", and have
generally agreed on "arglist", I suggest "argitem" for the other new tag. (there is already a sub-element called "<name>" under <software_data>, so
we should not have another similarly-named element)

That's probably not a bad idea. What I have right now
is named 'item' which doesn't actually clash with anything
else in the rest of the schema.

- the other possible sub-element of checkpoint, "args" (with an "s") is unchanged
by all this, correct?

Correct.

Alok

_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss

Reply via email to