Colin Paul Adams wrote: > >>>>> "David" == David Crossley writes: > > David> I notice that the RNG grammar is catering for the > David> deliberately broken lint/sitemap.xmap > > Actually, it's not deliberately broken - the invalid bits are > commented out.
Ah, i understand now. > What I've been doing is then to uncomment them one-by-one to > test the > power of the grammar to reject invalid constructs. That is a clever approach. > Those that it fails > to reject, I have added as comments to the grammar file, > to provoke thoughts on what to tackle next. Another way to assist this process would be to exclude lint/sitemap.xmap from the "validate" target and have a new target "validate-lint-sitemap" which only processes the lint one. From time-to-time we could expose certain difficult cases via CVS mods to lint/sitemap.xmap so that more people can see the validation messages. I followed some leads and found the old CVS history of the lint sitemap. There are some useful CVS comments from Vadim that might help. http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-cocoon2/ src/webapp/mount/lint/Attic/sitemap.xmap > However, I finding it quite hard to see how to tackle these cases. I > can't work out what the rules ought to be. They are certainly more > complex than the comments against these invalid cases suggest. Is this the best approach for clarification of all sitemap constructs? Perhaps should we just start at the top and carefully go through each component in turn, discussing its parameters and context. This would be a great opportunity to update the xdocs and javadocs as we go. It may take longer, but the people involved would learn a lot and Cocoon gets polish. --David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
