On Thursday, January 16, Mark Johnson wrote: > On Thursday, January 16, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > > > > When Adam and I talked about this we both came to the conclusion that > > until the various policies (FHS, LSB) support using /usr/share/xml we > > should be using /usr/share/sgml. > > Makes sense, for now anyway.
I'd like to retract my above remark. Here's why: The fact that the (non-normative) XML catalog DTD[1] allows the "xmlbase:" attribute already puts it _outside_ the realm of SGML. And this is only one of the many up-and-coming issues we'll face while developing a standards-based XML/SGML Policy for debian. My point being that the XML Catalog DTD itself has components that place it outside the SGML standard, and so we need to find a standards-based means of implementing /usr/share/xml... IMO, therefore, we need to work with FHS to add /usr/share/xml to the FHS. And asap. My $0.02, Mark [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/entity/release/1.0/catalog.dtd > Maybe we should start a push for FHS to add /usr/share/xml. It's gonna > be needed eventually, and I'd rather do all of this once:) > > Does anyone on this list know if the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard > Group has even considered/discussed this addition to the FHS? > > Thanks, > Mark > _____________________________________ Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian XML/SGML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: <http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/> GPG fp: 50DF A22D 5119 3485 E9E4 89B2 BCBC B2C8 2BE2 FE81 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
