On December 11, 2014 8:07:49 AM "Long, Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:

So. I ran the UDDF output through the XSL schema from the uddf site.
It looks like there are still lots of areas where we are not
compliant.

In general I have a dim view of the UDDF format (it's over designed and horribly verbose), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it right on export.

 - Lots of areas where there are mandatory tags we need to provide
(looks like most of this is static).

Hmm. Mandatory static tags. What's the entropy of that?

- Lots of ID which aren't compliant. I think this was problematic
anyway, and we should be using generate-id() in almost all of these
cases. For example, I have dives at 2 different sites, both called
"Lighthouse". I really don't wan to start naming these "Lighthouse,
Seychelles" and "Lighthouse, Mull" as then I'd have to do that for all
of my dives. The ids with spaces in also don't seem to be acceptable,
so it makes sense all round.

I'm probably not going to be able to do much tonight (club night), but
I might get some done when I get home. When were you looking to
finalise the release?

After talking to Willem and Pablo I might delay the release until after the weekend to get some last changes to the manual.

This also gives an extra bit of time for testing and bug fixing.

/D



_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface

Reply via email to