[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

xml-base => xml-common



Hi,

Based on the info below I propose we name the package 'xml-common'.
And guess what?  That appears to be name that RH is using too.
Another possibility is 'xml-core'.

They also use 'sgml-common' where we use 'sgml-base' (but that's
another discussion).

Also the number of 'foo-common' packages is larger (123) than the
number of 'foo-base' packages (42, :-)) (yeah, like that's the kind
of guidance we need ;-).

Thanks,
Ardo

Adam DiCarlo (adam@onshored.com) wrote:
> 
> FYI, some notes on our proposed XML catalog registration stuff.
> 

Content-Description: Undelivered Message
> From: Adam DiCarlo <adam@onshored.com>
> Subject: [Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>] Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: comments on "Using the DocBook XSL Stylesheets"
> To: debian-sgml@list.debian.org
> Date: 16 Dec 2002 15:39:15 -0600
> Organization: onShore Development, Inc
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
> 
> Comments from the RedHat front on XML catalog registration.  Note the
> critical issue of the xml-base pkgname being evil.  Otherwise it seems
> like our plan is good, though I would like to look at a RH box and see
> what they do.
> 

> From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: comments on "Using the DocBook XSL Stylesheets"
> To: Adam DiCarlo <adam@onshored.com>
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:08:52 -0500
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
> 
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:40:55AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > >   Note also that Debian, as an XML platform is really late, 80% of the
> > > people complaining on the Gnome list or IRC are Debian users without catalogs
> > > or screwed catalogs, just too many of them copy /etc/sgml/catalog to 
> > > /etc/xml/catalog and complain it doesn't work. You have a lot of work
> > > to be done apparently. Hope this can be fixed fast, as I said I do the
> > > end support for most of the libxml2/libxslt users independantly of their
> > > system/OS/distro and Debian is a pain in this respect.
> > 
> > I understand and sympathize.  
> > 
> > Does RedHat do central XML catalog registry?  E.g., does the
> 
>   yes
> 
> > docbook-xml catalog register it's entities?  I didn't think it did.
> 
>   it does of course, as well as the stylesheets.
> 
> > If it doesn't, how is Debian more problematic than RedHat?  Is it just
> 
>   the catalogs are in place for more than 2 Red Hat releases.
> 
> > I really am not trying to get into a "which distro is better" issue.
> > I just want to learn from your experience and do what is right for
> > users.
> 
>    We rely on the catalogs being present with registred DocBook XML Dtd
>  and XSLT for all the Gnome2 documentation work. Even scrollkeeper's DTD
> is registrated in the XML catalogs
> 
> > I wonder if I could bounce the proposed approach off you.  I did a
> > sketch of what we're wroking towards in
> > <URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-sgml/2002/debian-sgml-200212/msg00004.html>.
> > Any comments about that approach?
> 
>   We delegate into sub catalogs of course for efficiency and better management.
> xml-base is a wrong name, it's the name of a W3C XML specification, highly 
> confusing. 
>   Sub catalogs register public, system, uri, uri rewite, system rewrite,
> kind of rules.
>   /etc/xml should be part of the core filesystem infrastructure
>   /etc/xml/catalog is dynamically augmented/reduced as new XML envs are
>       added or removed from the system. Delegates are the usual way to do
>       this.
> 
>   I suggest you install a Red Hat 8 box to have an idea, and see how we do it.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
> veillard@redhat.com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
> http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
> 

> 
> 
> -- 
> ...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>



-- 
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: ardo@debian.org
home page:  http://people.debian.org/~ardo
GnuPG fp:   3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73  7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9



Reply to: