Re: question about placements in /usr/share/xml
Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshored.com> writes:
> I'm with Mark here. If I have XML data going in
> /usr/share/xml/docbook/4.0/ for instance, obviously I'll have my XML
> catalog, /usr/share/xml/docbook/4.0/catalog.xml. Doesn't it also make
> sense to have my SGML catalog, /usr/share/xml/docbook/4.0/catalog ?
>
> Seems to make sense to me, as a user or as a package maintainer.
Yes, I agree - but this is not what system creators (Daniel?) have had
in mind. In the past they said XML files only should go into the
/usr/share/xml hierarchy. Thus a full blown XML system can slurp in
all the files without any problem and build a cache or something like
that from it. Problem: DTDs are not XML files neither...
The new proposal isn't that helpfull. Okay, it is just "(optional)".
> Lets not overcomplicate matters please. I don't see any reason why
> SGML catalogs cannot reside in /usr/share/xml/.... Remember the
> catalog is just the registration of some content (a DTD or entity
> file). That is to say, its metadata. Whether the *content* itself is
> SGML or XML should determine whether it goes in /usr/share/sgml or
> /usr/share/xml .
Yes, but the problem is, it isn't a proper XML file...
Another question: where to move "website" by Norm? Under
/usr/share/xml/website/dtd/2.5.0 or
/usr/share/xml/docbook/dtd/website-2.5.0 (since it is a docbook
customization)?
Reply to: