Sounds perfect. - Morgan
----- Original Message ----- From: "dIon Gillard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [Latka] new Website docs and public DTDs > Morgan Delagrange wrote: > > >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 > > > I've gone and made the directory based changes, so they work for me :) > > > > >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? > > > > This makes sense, but how about the following: > - Rather than have all tests, including user-customised ones in > tests.ent, what about defining a 'custom-tests' entity and including > that in the dtd file. > - Given public DTDs, we should be able to set up the XML parser to > resolve the entities to a local directory/resource like digester does as > an alternative to the remote ones. > > That way the user can run off local copies (for performance reasons) and > edit the 'custom-tests.ent' file with their own mods? > > -- > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting > http://www.multitask.com.au/developers > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _________________________________________________________ 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]>
