Re: [klakier@pld.org.pl: Standard libxml-based processing scripts for DocBook?]
/ Eric Bischoff <e.bischoff@noos.fr> was heard to say:
| Wow, I'll check this! This is excellent news :-). I hope libxml will support
| them pretty soon too, this one is growing in importance every day.
It will require a C implementation of the Catalog resolver classes. I hope
to publish open source Java versions "real soon now" so porting should be
fairly painless. (I'm not promising that I'll get to it in this lifetime,
however).
| I have a doubt about who should provide such an entity resolver, and how easy
| it is to provide one, though. So far the only one I've seen was C++ code -
| something out of the scope of a normal user.
Hopefully Arnaud will accept it as part of libxml and then it'll just
be "built in", won't it?
| Would it make sense to start thinking about providing entity resolvers for
| the main tools, that would implement the catalogs mechanism, according to
| you, Norm? So at least a document coming from package A could find easily the
It's a quality of implementation issue. I'll stop using tools that
don't provide entity resolution mechanisms as soon as alternatives
exist that do.
| > I think this is wrong, but it's awfully late to try to get it fixed.
|
| Hmm, this seems to close the door to relative path-based solutions.
Yes. I wish I'd been paying more attention to SAX as it was developed,
I think it's done several things wrong with respect to entity
resolution, but c'est la vie.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The perfect man has no method; or
http://nwalsh.com/ | rather the best of methods, which is
| the method of no-method.--Shih-T'ao
Reply to: