Re: shipping the xml catalog DTD
On Thursday, January 16, Mark Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday, January 16, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> >
> > When Adam and I talked about this we both came to the conclusion that
> > until the various policies (FHS, LSB) support using /usr/share/xml we
> > should be using /usr/share/sgml.
>
> Makes sense, for now anyway.
I'd like to retract my above remark. Here's why:
The fact that the (non-normative) XML catalog DTD[1] allows the
"xmlbase:" attribute already puts it _outside_ the realm of
SGML. And this is only one of the many up-and-coming issues we'll
face while developing a standards-based XML/SGML Policy for debian.
My point being that the XML Catalog DTD itself has components that
place it outside the SGML standard, and so we need to find a
standards-based means of implementing /usr/share/xml...
IMO, therefore, we need to work with FHS to add /usr/share/xml to the
FHS. And asap.
My $0.02,
Mark
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/entity/release/1.0/catalog.dtd
> Maybe we should start a push for FHS to add /usr/share/xml. It's gonna
> be needed eventually, and I'd rather do all of this once:)
>
> Does anyone on this list know if the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
> Group has even considered/discussed this addition to the FHS?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
_____________________________________
Mark Johnson <mark@dulug.duke.edu>
Debian XML/SGML <mrj@debian.org>
Home Page: <http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/>
GPG fp: 50DF A22D 5119 3485 E9E4 89B2 BCBC B2C8 2BE2 FE81
Reply to: