Re: Catalog Policy comments
Jor-el <jorel@austin.rr.com> writes:
> It is quite evident that when (a) and (b) are executed by package
> catalogs, it is quite possible to specify the target filename in full thus
> eliminating the need for parsing a third catalog in these two cases. (c),
> if I read it write, actually maps to a filename directly, and so wouldnt
> have a corresponding entry in the local catalog. If there is a benefit to
> having local and package catalogs, please enlighten me.
It is debatable if root -> package -> local catalog is
over-engineering. It might be. I think root -> local will commonly
work just as well. Mark's policy even reluctantly acknowledge this in
part 2.
On the principle of "simpler is better", I do think we should maybe
just go with root catalog /etc/xml/catalog which maps out / delegates
to the package catalogs in /usr/share/sgml/... I'm open either way
though.
> 2. From draft 1 where you state the goals of ther root catalog :
>
> - Allow for designation of xsl stylesheet shortcuts, e.g. the
> capability to provide "db-chunk.xsl" as input to an XSLT processor,
> rather than having to type
> "/usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheets/nwalsh/html/chunk.xsl"
>
> (a) I've never tried this, so I wouldnt know - does this actually
> work? One would think that a relative reference like that would be
> resolved by the XSL processor relative to the file containing the
> reference.
>
> (b) What about namespace collisions? Since, we are allowing
> references in a global namespace by this mechanisms, how do we
> handle multiple files with the same names? Special prefixes? Do we
> need to register these prefixes so that different packages dont
> argue over the "cool" prefixes?
>
> 3. Nit-picking : your draft 1 specifies the name of the root catalog as
> /etc/xml/xcatalog . I dont believe we have a choice in this as most tools
> assume /etc/xml/catalog
I strongly agree. I didn't notice. It really *MUST* be
/usr/xml/catalog. Nothing else makes sense.
> Also, I had proposed the .xcat filename
> extension for catalog files (which you use for package catalogs) to which
> Adam had objected stating that since they are XML files, it would be
> better to have them with the .xml extension.
Yes, most of the upstream cases I've seen show package catalogs as
'catalog.xml'.
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: