Jor-el <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is quite evident that when (a) and (b) are executed by package > catalogs, it is quite possible to specify the target filename in full thus > eliminating the need for parsing a third catalog in these two cases. (c), > if I read it write, actually maps to a filename directly, and so wouldnt > have a corresponding entry in the local catalog. If there is a benefit to > having local and package catalogs, please enlighten me.
It is debatable if root -> package -> local catalog is over-engineering. It might be. I think root -> local will commonly work just as well. Mark's policy even reluctantly acknowledge this in part 2. On the principle of "simpler is better", I do think we should maybe just go with root catalog /etc/xml/catalog which maps out / delegates to the package catalogs in /usr/share/sgml/... I'm open either way though. > 2. From draft 1 where you state the goals of ther root catalog : > > - Allow for designation of xsl stylesheet shortcuts, e.g. the > capability to provide "db-chunk.xsl" as input to an XSLT processor, > rather than having to type > "/usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheets/nwalsh/html/chunk.xsl" > > (a) I've never tried this, so I wouldnt know - does this actually > work? One would think that a relative reference like that would be > resolved by the XSL processor relative to the file containing the > reference. > > (b) What about namespace collisions? Since, we are allowing > references in a global namespace by this mechanisms, how do we > handle multiple files with the same names? Special prefixes? Do we > need to register these prefixes so that different packages dont > argue over the "cool" prefixes? > > 3. Nit-picking : your draft 1 specifies the name of the root catalog as > /etc/xml/xcatalog . I dont believe we have a choice in this as most tools > assume /etc/xml/catalog I strongly agree. I didn't notice. It really *MUST* be /usr/xml/catalog. Nothing else makes sense. > Also, I had proposed the .xcat filename > extension for catalog files (which you use for package catalogs) to which > Adam had objected stating that since they are XML files, it would be > better to have them with the .xml extension. Yes, most of the upstream cases I've seen show package catalogs as 'catalog.xml'. -- ...Adam Di Carlo..<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
