Rodney Dawes wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 01:36 +0200, Timo Stülten wrote:
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".
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.
If I understand the XML spec correctly, DOCTYPE definitions are only
allowed in the prolog of an well-formed XML-Document and namespace
definitions only in the root node. XML-fragments cannot have DOCTYPE or
namespace definitions and we cannot improve the accuracy of detection.
Docbook apps writing fragments are not broken. The only solution I see
is using unique file extensions for fragments.
-Timo-
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
