implementing /usr/share/xml ??
On Saturday, January 25, Mark Johnson wrote:
> On , January 25, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > Well, I doubt we can make the FHS jump.
Yeah, they're pretty conservative, and for good reason.
> > If we wanna start using /usr/share/xml even before the FHS blesses
> > it, I think we should go ahead and do that.
I agree with you here, Adam.
And if FHS decides to add /usr/share/xml, they'd simply be following
the 'adoption of effective practice' spec development procedure used
by a number of standards group. IETF, comes to mind here.
> > I'm kinda of the opinion that we *should* make that move, it seems to
> > match what the rest of the world is doing.
I don't know yet if it matches what other distros are doing, but I'm
also of the opinion that we should definitely start the move to
FWIW, I'm getting some RedHat 8 CDs soon, after which I'll install it
and report back as to whether they implement /usr/share/xml (as well
as their xml catalog structure.) Still waiting to hear from SuSE...
(Then again, I could simply ask Greg LeBlanc, who seems to have
every distro installed. Greg, you lurking out there??)
After that, I'll make a post to the FHS discuss list and try to
re-open the discussion about adding /usr/share/xml to the
hierarchy, as well as modifying their statements regarding
/etc/sgml - which come right out of the stalled LSB-SGML policy
I highly encourage any interested members of debian-sgml to join this
list. It's relatively low traffic (a message every few days
lately). You can sign up for the list here:
> IMO, /usr/share/xml seems inevitable. Really.
I again agree with myself, here:)
 See http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.11.html#4.11.7
for the FHS section on /usr/share/sgml
 See http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.7.html#3.7.6
for the FHS section on /etc/sgml
Mark Johnson <email@example.com>
Debian XML/SGML <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Home Page: <http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/>
GPG fp: 50DF A22D 5119 3485 E9E4 89B2 BCBC B2C8 2BE2 FE81