[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

does anyone use psgml with XEmacs?



In September I changed Linux distributions, and since then I have been
getting the following errors from XEmacs psgml-mode:

Docbook documents:

/usr/lib/sgml/entities/ISOamsa line 11 col 22 entity ISOamsa
/usr/lib/sgml/entities/docbook-3.1/dbcent.mod line 54 col 9 entity dbcent
/usr/lib/sgml/dtd/docbook-3.1/docbook.dtd line 69 col 8 entity BOOK
/home/hgebel/development/PyBackup/doc/doctest.sgml line 1 col 54 
Delimiter MDC (>) expected; at: "[cularr]"--

HTML documents:

/usr/lib/sgml/entities/HTMLlat1 line 12 col 22 entity HTMLlat1
/usr/lib/sgml/dtd/html-4.01-loose.dtd line 174 col 10 entity HTML
/home/hgebel/development/PyBackup/doc/test.html line 1 col 62 
Delimiter MDC (>) expected; at: " " -- 

I reformated all of my partitions except /home , so all of the files in
other partitions are from the new distribution rather than the old
one. Since I kept my old home directory I thought it might be a problem
with an old configuration file there; but I created a new user and got the
same problem when logged in as that user.

I am using Debian 2.2r1 with the XEmacs version 21.1.12. I am using the
psgml mode that came with the Debian XEmacs package. My previous
distribution was Mandrake 7.1 with whatever XEmacs and psgml mode came with
that distribution. psgml worked fine under that distribution.

If I run nsgmls on a file it processes it fine, so I don't think there is a
problem with my DTDs or catalogs, although I don't understand SGML
internals well enough to be sure about that.

Does anyone have an idea what is going on here? I wish I knew more about
psgml (and SGML in general) internals so I could figure it out on my own,
but I don't.

Up until now I have just avoided using psgml mode, but I am starting a
project where I will need to use it alot, and it would be extremely
convenient if psgml mode was working to it's full potential.

-- 
Harry Henry Gebel, ICQ# 76308382
West Dover Hundred, Delaware



Reply to: