I wrote: > My hesitation is that, as you know, the Latka DTD is not one big file but > several entity files wrapped by a small XML doc. If we didn't use separate > directories, we'd have to put version numbers on all of those files. Long > term, that seems like a hassle. In any case, any non-backwards compatible > change to the DTD should require a major release, so we will be able to get > away with one DTD for all 1.x releases. >
Or we could just put the _fragments_ in a subdirectory, but maintain the same base directory. Duh, silly me. I think you're right, we can get away with the simpler http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/latka/dtds/suite-1.x.dtd approach if we do something like: /commons /latka /dtds suite-1.x.dtd report-1.x.dtd /1.x suite.ent tests.ent standardValidations.ent That actually segues well into the changes I'm contemplating for the DTD. :) Right now the main Latka doc looks like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!-- standard wrapper for the main DTD elements --> <!ENTITY % suite.ent SYSTEM "suite.ent"> %suite.ent; And inside suite.ent we reference tests.ent, where the user can add custom tests. What if we took the tests.ent reference out of suite.ent and did it in the main DTD file instead? In that case, you should be able to reference a _local_ copy of tests.ent, but a _remote_ copy of suite.ent. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!-- standard wrapper for the main DTD elements --> <!ENTITY % suite.ent SYSTEM "http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/latka/dtds/1.x/suite.ent";> <!ENTITY % tests.ent SYSTEM "tests.ent"> %suite.ent; %tests.ent; Do you think that makes sense, or is it too complicated? - Morgan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
