The dtd was really just an easy explanation of what the fields meant. The only reason I suggested this was if an xml doc is published (which it seems your leaning against), then a user will ask what the fields mean.
My reason for leaning towards an xml doc is so I can push fields to MRTG (or similar) in the future. Or so I can easily integrate this into my helpdesk. I submit some changes and get rejected, I won't take it personally. I'll just keep trying.
-Tim
Costin Manolache wrote:
Tim Funk wrote:
I am in the process of reworking the style sheet to make it "prettier". (I do my testing in mozilla)
I will also try to: - create a DTD which will explain the xml output - add an option to allow the user to change the style sheet - incorporate more information into the XML doc output - wish to change the user who can see this ( So a help desk or monitoring app can use this without having all the privledges of manager)
Please, don't !
Just display plain XHTML - it is a very bad idea to display the page in XML+XSL.
Also I am very strongly against creating arbitrary XML DTDs ( and the current DTD is one very bad form - it's not extensible, etc ).
I hope to have a submit a pathc tomorrow. With luck I will also post a demonstration page to so anyone can see the results without having to compile/run the code too.
I'm strongly -1 ( ==veto ) on this implementation ( even if you manage to
make it work in Mozilla ). XML+XSL is not supported in many browsers, it is
overkill. The used DTD is pretty bad too.
( it seems even MSIE5.5 has problems displaying the page ! Do I have to install WindowsXP to see the tomcat page ? )
Costin
-Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
