> -----Original Message----- > From: David Crossley [mailto:cross...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2009 2:04 PM > To: dev@forrest.apache.org > Subject: need id attribute for map element in document-v20 DTD > > Gavin wrote: > > From: Gavin > > > > > > > > validate-xdocs: > > > > [xmlvalidate] /export/home/config/forrestbot- > trunk/conf/work/forrest- > > > > sample-2/src/documentation/content/xdocs/samples- > b/sample.xml:359:42: > > > > Attribute "id" must be declared for element type "map". > > > > [echo] Oops, something broke > > > > > > Lovely, I'll revert. > > > > > > (yes I know I should have tested first, no lectures please) > > > > > > We need to add this to our Document-v20 then I guess ? > > > > > > Gav... > > > > Here's my diff:- > > > > D:\Apache2\forrest\main\webapp\resources>svn diff > > Index: schema/dtd/document-v20.mod > > =================================================================== > > --- schema/dtd/document-v20.mod (revision 734577) > > +++ schema/dtd/document-v20.mod (working copy) > > @@ -199,6 +199,7 @@ > > <!ELEMENT map ( area+)> > > <!ATTLIST map > > name CDATA #IMPLIED > > + id CDATA #IMPLIED > > > > > <!ELEMENT area EMPTY> > > <!ATTLIST area > > > > > > I don't like messing with our dtd without approval first. > > Is the above ok to commit? > > The IDs need to be "ID" rather than "CDATA". > > See higher in the DTD around line #454. > Perhaps need to use "%common.att;" as is used for > example for the "strong" element.
Ok, yeah that looks fine we can use that. I have not looked to > ensure that "class" and "id" are both optional attributes > for the "map" element'. Well, for HTML 4.01 it is optional, for XHTML 1.0 Strict it is required. As we are testing both types on the same document we need to choose one or the other. Optional means those using HTML 4.01 don't need to use it. However we have no way of ensuring compliance for an XHTML 1.0 unless a user check spots it. Required means we would require it for HTML 4.01 document types too, although not required, it does it ensure compliance against XHTML 1.0 Tricky, not sure which is best, as this stage I'd probably go for optional, as we will ensure forrest complies via checks. ? Gav... > > -David > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1893 - Release Date: 1/14/2009 > 6:59 AM
