On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Vincent de Lau wrote: > DTD's > ----- > section/related elements > The section element relies on related, which is not in common.dtd. > Also, in the current definition, you can have multiple related elements > within one section. > I propose to move the related and directivelist element to common.dtd and > change the section element to:
Sounds good. > <!ELEMENT section (title, related?, (section | %blocktags;)*)> > This would have the following results on module docs: > - enforces title element, which was optional but could occur multiple > times I'm not sure whether or not we want to allow sections without titles. I guess we can ban them for now and see how it goes. > - allows related element to be used > I've discovered one page that will not conform after the changes: > mod_rewrite > uses a section element to group an image with a caption and does not use a > title > element. That can be fixed. > > message files > Would it be usefull to have these documents conforming to a DTD? I don't think it is worth the effort. They are really just a utility thing to make the xslt work better. > > XSLT > ---- > general > common.dtd calls a template for a meta element, which does not exist in > any DTD or current XML file. Should it be removed? Yes. > > manualpage > The title in the generated page is prepended with 'Apache Module'. > Should we change this in 'Apache Manual:' or discard it? > Changing it would require an update to all the message files. Discard. My mistake, certainly. > > XML > --- > 3 (english) module pages are not conformant to the current DTD: mod_userdir, > mod_proxy and mod_echo > I haven't checked the Japenese yet. > > If there is consensus about these issues, I'll send patches and new files to > the list. Sounds good. Joshua. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
