Subject: Re: AbiWord DTD
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Mon Feb 28 2000 - 19:22:12 CST
At 12:25 AM 2/26/00 -0600, sam th wrote:
>Just because pain is so much fun, I think that I could probably also try
>tackling the file format document. It doesn't seem that complicated, and
>the changes have not been monumental. (that comes soon)
Cool! That document could really use some spiffing up. Then, once it's
current again, we can start insisting that patches which affect the file
format also need to include diffs to that document.
>I guess you are short on time. In the DTD, both on my website, and on the
>AbiSource site, p has a props attribute. The DTD on my site
>http://bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu/abiword/
>is the most current.
Doh! Did I say P PROPS? I should have said C STYLE and S TYPE, which are
both much less serious. Sorry for being so grumpy. This is getting very
close, I think.
>As it's new, it will keep changing, and of course
>the version I have will be ahead of what Bob can keep up on the official
>page. I currently have two version, one as standard XML,
>and one with some strange SGML constructs to make the W3C validator like
>it. Use the standard one.
Are there two different styles of DTD syntax? I've seen the W3C-style ones
before, but never bothered to learn what all that extra syntax means.
>> 3. Make it self-documenting. For example, add comments to the top of the
>> DTD file itself which explain that it's intended to be descriptive, not
>> normative.
>>
>Done.
>
>> 4. Add more comments. For example, the DTDs for HTML do a pretty nice
job
>> of explaining what and how each group of attributes gets used.
>>
>Will do.
Very nice. Thanks.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 19:16:42 CST