On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 01:36 +0200, Timo Stülten wrote: > > On 7/25/05, Christopher James Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Does anyone have any suggestions for how to proceed here? I want to > > > make the mime system detect docbook, since there is a mime type for it. > > > > > Alternatively, is it possible to specify an empty namespace and just > > > > specify the localname? That way any xml docs that match as <article> > > > > or <book> would just be labeled as docbook. > A lot of docbook files on my system only have <chapter>s in them. They do not > have a DOCTYPE, nor any URI. > Without a proper DOCTYPE/URI, there is no clean way to recognize them by > content as <article> and <chapter> are not very specific to docbook I think. > May be it's better to simply use a unique file extension (=".docbook")? All > chapter-files on my system here already end in ".docbook".
Right. Without proper definition of what the XML file is, there is no clean way to tell what the XML file is. Therefore, it should just be identified as XML, if the file extension is ".xml", and the type of XML in the file contents is not easily identifiable. I've also seen the extension ".dbk" used for docbook files. So, falling back to also using those extensions as matches, seems viable to me. However, we are not Windows, and should not rely solely on file extensions to assume content. Whatever application is writing out those "incomplete" docbook files, should probably be fixed to do the right thing, and write out a correct DOCTYPE and have proper reference to the DTD or namespaces being used, so that we can improve the accuracy of content type detection. -- dobey _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
