Re: SGML/XML Policy Group - XML Catalog Update
I think I forgot to reply to this one.
Mark Johnson <mrj@debian.org> writes:
> > seems to be LSB compliant
>
> Not really - see the points of departure in the old LSB-On-Debian
> draft we wrote last year:
> http://klecker.debian.org/~mrj/sgml-policy-draft/points-of-departure.html
>
> AFAIK, the SGML/XML component of LSB died, anyway. So there is no
> issue of LSB compliance. FWIW, I did try to get $$ to revive work on
> the spec, but struck out. There's only that old, somewhat problematic
> draft of a spec:
> http://klecker.debian.org/~mrj/lsb-sgmlspec_cvs20020308/lsbsgml.html
>
> I'll look into starting it up again - I happen to desperately need a
> job, anyway:)
Lets get the Debian draft worked out and perhaps we can use role
attrib plus styling to produce LSB version + Debian versions form
single source.
> > > > - whether to move to a /usr/share/sgml /usr/share/xml split, as
> > > > will be done with /etc/sgml and /etc/xml
> >
> > My feeling was that /usr/share/sgml is what is LSB and we should
> > follow that, at least for any XML DTDs and entities which also are
> > valid SGML. This might exclude RELAX and XML schemas, which might
> > better be in /usr/share/xml.
>
> I say put it ALL in /usr/share/xml. Nothing will break - except my
> head from trying to work it all out in a sensible fashion:)
I think this is moot because we all agreed to stick with
/usr/share/sgml for now?
> > Putting proper XML valid as SGML stuff into only in /usr/share/xml is
> > going to break the ability to process XML with the SGML toolchain
> > (jade,sp,etc etc).
>
> I disagree. Jade, et al, don't care where things are. SGML/XML
> resources are located using the existing SGML (aka TR9401) catalog
> system. If the "XML valid as SGML stuff" is also registered with the
> SGML catalog system there shouldn't be any problem whatsoever.
Hmmm. Is this true? Have you tried it?
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: