I wouldn't go that far. A proper schema validation already tells you if
you have an element in the wrong place. Besides that I guess what I want
most is that users read and interpret error messages. :-)
On 13.09.2006 20:31:03 Simon Pepping wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:37:20PM +0200,
Oops.
On 14.09.2006 02:23:49 Manuel Mall wrote:
snip/
This made me look at our 'upgrading' page. It does NOT(!) mention
that the config file format has changed!
Seems to me the easiest fix to all of this is to actually tell users
that they also have to change the config file used with
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:37:20PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 12.09.2006 21:13:35 Simon Pepping wrote:
Re extensibility: A XML file is validated according to the DTD or
schema that it declares (Relax-NG is an exception). The user can put a
DTD or schema of his own choice in the user
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Ok, I consider myself defeated concerning the way we handle the
configuration file (See recent threads on fop-users). The Avalon
configuration approach is very nice for the developer but obviously
bullshit in terms of end-user-friendlyness.
Back from vacation, a few
On Thursday 14 September 2006 07:34, J.Pietschmann wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Ok, I consider myself defeated concerning the way we handle the
configuration file (See recent threads on fop-users). The Avalon
configuration approach is very nice for the developer but obviously
bullshit in
Jeremias,
What is the problem you are trying to address:
1. Users use configuration files with errors which can be detected by
the fop-configuration schema, but they do not validate it.
2. Users use configuration files with errors which cannot be detected
by the fop-configuration schema.
On 12.09.2006 21:13:35 Simon Pepping wrote:
Jeremias,
What is the problem you are trying to address:
1. Users use configuration files with errors which can be detected by
the fop-configuration schema, but they do not validate it.
2. Users use configuration files with errors which
On Sunday 10 September 2006 20:52, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Ok, I consider myself defeated concerning the way we handle the
configuration file (See recent threads on fop-users). The Avalon
configuration approach is very nice for the developer but obviously
bullshit in terms of
Ok, but with your statement you're carefully avoiding the topic about
how to actually validate the configuration. Are we then writing a number
of plug-ins which contain manually written code that verifies the config
file on the various levels (root, renderer, fonts)? Possible, not
difficult
We could just identify the schema in the DOCTYPE (or DTD if we decide
to go that route--a schema is much more powerful, but isn't it more
overhead?). Then, we could alter the location at will. Instead of
embedding the file in FOP, it could be located either locally
(relative to FOP or the XML
On 10.09.2006 17:01:30 The Web Maestro wrote:
We could just identify the schema in the DOCTYPE (or DTD if we decide
to go that route--a schema is much more powerful, but isn't it more
overhead?). Then, we could alter the location at will. Instead of
embedding the file in FOP, it could be
On 9/10/06, Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10.09.2006 17:01:30 The Web Maestro wrote:
On a related point, does it make sense that all configuration be
handled in one place (e.g., fonts too)?
Can you explain further what you mean?
Sorry. For some reason I thought the FONT
12 matches
Mail list logo
