XInclude

[Brian M Dube <bd...@apache.org>]

Gavin wrote:
> Well this seemed to pass my tests locally, its late I'll look in the morning
> and either fix it or revert.

I committed r678217 to suppress validation on samples-b/xinclude.xml.

Brian

Re: XInclude

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

David Crossley wrote:
> XInclude is now added to the document-v20 DTD.
> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1032


Thanks to the newcomers who made this happen (and the old timers who 
committed the work).

This is an important addition to Forrest.

Ross

Re: XInclude

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

XInclude is now added to the document-v20 DTD.
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1032

-David

Re: XInclude

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Gavin wrote:
>>>> From: Brian M Dube
>>>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>> Brian M Dube wrote:
>>>>>> Gavin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well this seemed to pass my tests locally, its late I'll look in the
>>>>>>> morning
>>>>>>> and either fix it or revert.
>>>>>> I committed r678217 to suppress validation on samples-b/xinclude.xml.
>>>>> -1
>>>>>
>>>>> Obscuring a bad commit is not good practice. We should revert the
>>>>> offending commit or fix the problem it introduced.
>>>> The problem does not appear to be trivial. The Document DTD would need
>>>> to allow for XInclude almost everywhere. Is this practical? What is the
>>>> alternative?
>>> Well, bad day for me, I 'assumed' we had xinclude support for our
>>> document-v20, so thanks for reverting.
>>>
>>> In another thread I'm talking about removing the todo list, one of the items
>>> on that list says :-
>>>
>>> 18. - [code] Migrate to a decent schema language, primarily so that we can
>>> use namespaces in XML docs, allowing things like XInclude, in-line metadata,
>>> in-line SVG, Jelly snippets, or anything else users can make a Transformer
>>> for. ?$B"* open
>>>
>>> So it seems that is not done. I don't know the best way forward on this, we
>>> can add it to our DTD, create a new one and add it to our schema, point to
>>> something better existing or .. ??
> 
> IIRC, we have decided in the past to add it to our xdocs DTD,
> just that no-one has done it. Search the mail lists and Jira.
> There are many discussions. I am just back from holidays
> and busy catching up, so cannot help more. Here is one
> starting point, but there are more:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&pid=12310000&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&component=12310001
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1032
> 
> As long as we can do the same thing whenever we move
> to XHTML as the internal format, then i am happy for us
> add any well-reasoned new elements to the XDOC DTD.
> 
>>> The patch itself seems flawless in its application, matching the W3C
>>> examples [1] pretty closely, so I don?$B!Gt have a problem with the way they
>>> have been applied as such, just need to work out the best approach to
>>> approve the method and get it validated against our tests.
>> Hmmm.... I'm sure I've used XInclude without breaking validation,
>> however, it is many years ago now and my memory may be tricking me.
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with DTD's.
>>
>> I'd be happy to remove my -1 on the example and the validation turn off
>> if there was a nice big *warning* at the top of the sample page to warn
>> users about this and to point to an issue to fix it.
> 
> I am not happy to supply an example that contradicts standards.

OK. I'll keep my -1 one then, I was borderline.

We need to add it to the DTD.

Ross

Re: XInclude

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Ross Gardler wrote:
> Gavin wrote:
> >> From: Brian M Dube
> >> Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>> Brian M Dube wrote:
> >>>> Gavin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Well this seemed to pass my tests locally, its late I'll look in the
> >>>>> morning
> >>>>> and either fix it or revert.
> >>>>
> >>>> I committed r678217 to suppress validation on samples-b/xinclude.xml.
> >>>
> >>> -1
> >>>
> >>> Obscuring a bad commit is not good practice. We should revert the
> >>> offending commit or fix the problem it introduced.
> >> The problem does not appear to be trivial. The Document DTD would need
> >> to allow for XInclude almost everywhere. Is this practical? What is the
> >> alternative?
> > 
> > Well, bad day for me, I 'assumed' we had xinclude support for our
> > document-v20, so thanks for reverting.
> > 
> > In another thread I'm talking about removing the todo list, one of the items
> > on that list says :-
> > 
> > 18. - [code] Migrate to a decent schema language, primarily so that we can
> > use namespaces in XML docs, allowing things like XInclude, in-line metadata,
> > in-line SVG, Jelly snippets, or anything else users can make a Transformer
> > for. ?$B"* open
> > 
> > So it seems that is not done. I don't know the best way forward on this, we
> > can add it to our DTD, create a new one and add it to our schema, point to
> > something better existing or .. ??

IIRC, we have decided in the past to add it to our xdocs DTD,
just that no-one has done it. Search the mail lists and Jira.
There are many discussions. I am just back from holidays
and busy catching up, so cannot help more. Here is one
starting point, but there are more:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&pid=12310000&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&component=12310001
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1032

As long as we can do the same thing whenever we move
to XHTML as the internal format, then i am happy for us
add any well-reasoned new elements to the XDOC DTD.

> > The patch itself seems flawless in its application, matching the W3C
> > examples [1] pretty closely, so I don?$B!Gt have a problem with the way they
> > have been applied as such, just need to work out the best approach to
> > approve the method and get it validated against our tests.
> 
> Hmmm.... I'm sure I've used XInclude without breaking validation,
> however, it is many years ago now and my memory may be tricking me.
> 
> I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with DTD's.
> 
> I'd be happy to remove my -1 on the example and the validation turn off
> if there was a nice big *warning* at the top of the sample page to warn
> users about this and to point to an issue to fix it.

I am not happy to supply an example that contradicts standards.

-David

Re: XHTML2 as forrest internal

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Tim Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:07 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> Carlos Tejo Alonso wrote:
>>>
>>>>> For a very long time we have intending to move to a subset of XHTML
>>>>> 2. But planning and doing are two different things. We need someone
>>>>> with a suitably strong need to solve the problems posed by XDoc to
>>>>> actually do it.
>>>> Maybe, we should start to think to do it. Could somebody show the
>>>> steps to move from xdoc to xhtml? I will try to do my bit.
>>> If it were that simple we would have done it by now ;-)
>>>
>>> There have been a number of false starts on this. My own effort was
>>> aborted because a significant number of people in the community
>>> disagreed with my approach.
>> Wow. That is not my recollection. I thought that we had a
>> little try, confirmed that it would take a co-ordinated
>> approach, and left it for another day. I am talking about
>> the re-working of all sitemaps and stylesheets (including
>> plugins) to deal with XHTML2 internally, leaving everything
>> else (e.g. cocoon) as it already is.
>>
>> Are you talking about something else, or do you recall
>> it differently?
> 
> <blush> I reckon he's mostly referring to me:(
> 
>>> Gav made a start on an XHTML2 plugin (in whiteboard) but that also stalled.
>> IIRC, the initial "internal.xhtml2" and "input.xdoc" were
>> the result of Ross, Tim, and others around some of our
>> Friday IRC sessions. I thought that was a fantastic step forward.
>>
>> I thought that it was just waiting for some group of people
>> to get itchy again.
> 
> The details are forgotten with time, but I believe the sticking point
> was an issue of "scope" of what it means to transition.  There were
> two pieces of work to be done:
> o) Data format - schema, updating input plugins, create xdoc->xhtml2
> plugin, etc.
> o) Pipeline refining - update pipelines to take advantage of xhtml2 + views
> 
> IIRC, I wanted them to be addressed separately to allow baby steps.
> Ross preferred more holistic approach.  Part of my motivation at the
> time was that views were still very much a moving target.  In the end,
> no substantive steps were taken and I probably gave way too much merit
> to how much any given approach really matters in the grand scheme.
> Perhaps the only good news is that in the meantime the dispatcher has
> matured, making the timing ripe for someone to re-engage.

As you say time blurs the recollection - but all the discussions are in 
the mailing lists and the IRC session logs, in particular:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/forrest/events/forrest-friday/20050906-log.txt

and

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/forrest/events/forrest-friday/20050918-log.txt

I think Tim's recollection is close enough. At the time some people felt 
that views were not mature enough for this early XHTML2 experimental work.

Today views (now Dispatcher) is reasonably stable, but it still has not 
graduated from the whiteboard.

At the time of doing our experiments with the XHTML2 work I used views 
*because* it was a moving target. At that time it was an opportunity to 
rewrite significant portions of Forrest a piece at a time.

Once that was done we could decide to retrofit that to skins or to move 
the work into the main dispatcher (nee views) pkugin. However, we never 
got that far because we couldn't agree on the right approach and I 
didn't want to waste my time on an approach that was not going to be 
accepted by the community.

In that respect I think Davids recollections are also true. There is a 
great deal of work to do to make XHTML2 happen and without the full 
support of the community it isn't going to happen.

We are agreed that we need to do it. We are not agreed with how to do 
it. Personally I think anyone who has the time to devote to this should 
be free to just get on with it and we, as a community, should provide 
whatever support we can.

It is the end result that matters not the road we take.

So, if someone is working in dispatcher on their home sites and their 
itch says they need XHTML2 support then go for it with the dispatcher. 
If you are using skins, then go for it using skins.

Ross



> 
> If my memory has served me wrong, I apologize in advance, it's
> definitely not my intent to be a revisionist historian:)
> 
> --tim

Re: XHTML2 as forrest internal

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Tim Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:07 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> Carlos Tejo Alonso wrote:
>>>
>>>>> For a very long time we have intending to move to a subset of XHTML
>>>>> 2. But planning and doing are two different things. We need someone
>>>>> with a suitably strong need to solve the problems posed by XDoc to
>>>>> actually do it.
>>>> Maybe, we should start to think to do it. Could somebody show the
>>>> steps to move from xdoc to xhtml? I will try to do my bit.
>>> If it were that simple we would have done it by now ;-)
>>>
>>> There have been a number of false starts on this. My own effort was
>>> aborted because a significant number of people in the community
>>> disagreed with my approach.
>> Wow. That is not my recollection. I thought that we had a
>> little try, confirmed that it would take a co-ordinated
>> approach, and left it for another day. I am talking about
>> the re-working of all sitemaps and stylesheets (including
>> plugins) to deal with XHTML2 internally, leaving everything
>> else (e.g. cocoon) as it already is.
>>
>> Are you talking about something else, or do you recall
>> it differently?
> 
> <blush> I reckon he's mostly referring to me:(

Not at all, there was considerable support for your position.

My comment is not a complaint, merely an observation that the approach 
taken in my work was not universally accepted. I was trying to prevent 
us going down the same road again without discussion first.

I'll get back to this thread when I have time to contribute to the 
discussion (within 24 hours I hope)

Ross

Ross

Re: XHTML2 as forrest internal

[Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:07 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Carlos Tejo Alonso wrote:
>>
>> >>For a very long time we have intending to move to a subset of XHTML
>> >>2. But planning and doing are two different things. We need someone
>> >>with a suitably strong need to solve the problems posed by XDoc to
>> >> actually do it.
>> >
>> >Maybe, we should start to think to do it. Could somebody show the
>> >steps to move from xdoc to xhtml? I will try to do my bit.
>>
>> If it were that simple we would have done it by now ;-)
>>
>> There have been a number of false starts on this. My own effort was
>> aborted because a significant number of people in the community
>> disagreed with my approach.
>
> Wow. That is not my recollection. I thought that we had a
> little try, confirmed that it would take a co-ordinated
> approach, and left it for another day. I am talking about
> the re-working of all sitemaps and stylesheets (including
> plugins) to deal with XHTML2 internally, leaving everything
> else (e.g. cocoon) as it already is.
>
> Are you talking about something else, or do you recall
> it differently?

<blush> I reckon he's mostly referring to me:(

>> Gav made a start on an XHTML2 plugin (in whiteboard) but that also stalled.
>
> IIRC, the initial "internal.xhtml2" and "input.xdoc" were
> the result of Ross, Tim, and others around some of our
> Friday IRC sessions. I thought that was a fantastic step forward.
>
> I thought that it was just waiting for some group of people
> to get itchy again.

The details are forgotten with time, but I believe the sticking point
was an issue of "scope" of what it means to transition.  There were
two pieces of work to be done:
o) Data format - schema, updating input plugins, create xdoc->xhtml2
plugin, etc.
o) Pipeline refining - update pipelines to take advantage of xhtml2 + views

IIRC, I wanted them to be addressed separately to allow baby steps.
Ross preferred more holistic approach.  Part of my motivation at the
time was that views were still very much a moving target.  In the end,
no substantive steps were taken and I probably gave way too much merit
to how much any given approach really matters in the grand scheme.
Perhaps the only good news is that in the meantime the dispatcher has
matured, making the timing ripe for someone to re-engage.

If my memory has served me wrong, I apologize in advance, it's
definitely not my intent to be a revisionist historian:)

--tim

XHTML2 as forrest internal

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Ross Gardler wrote:
> Carlos Tejo Alonso wrote:
> 
> >>For a very long time we have intending to move to a subset of XHTML
> >>2. But planning and doing are two different things. We need someone
> >>with a suitably strong need to solve the problems posed by XDoc to
> >> actually do it.
> >
> >Maybe, we should start to think to do it. Could somebody show the
> >steps to move from xdoc to xhtml? I will try to do my bit.
> 
> If it were that simple we would have done it by now ;-)
> 
> There have been a number of false starts on this. My own effort was 
> aborted because a significant number of people in the community 
> disagreed with my approach.

Wow. That is not my recollection. I thought that we had a
little try, confirmed that it would take a co-ordinated
approach, and left it for another day. I am talking about
the re-working of all sitemaps and stylesheets (including
plugins) to deal with XHTML2 internally, leaving everything
else (e.g. cocoon) as it already is.

Are you talking about something else, or do you recall
it differently?

> Gav made a start on an XHTML2 plugin (in whiteboard) but that also stalled.

IIRC, the initial "internal.xhtml2" and "input.xdoc" were
the result of Ross, Tim, and others around some of our
Friday IRC sessions. I thought that was a fantastic step forward.

I thought that it was just waiting for some group of people
to get itchy again.

> Status is discussed in 
> http://markmail.org/message/f4shq54nmqebki5o?q=list:forrest-dev+xhtml2#query:list%3Aforrest-dev 
> xhtml2+page:1+mid:ttv65i23quvrkzks+state:results
> 
> Like any open source project our archives and issue tracker are our 
> memory and information pook. Look in JIRA for mentions of XHTML2, in 
> particular the following issue identifies the outline steps involved in 
> making this move and tracks activity to date (including links into the 
> mail arcives):

Yeah, and i recommend that all Forrest developers use
the http://forrest.apache.org/tools/forrestbar.html for Firefox.
It is fantastic for a quick directed search of our mail archives,
and issue tracker, and svn commits, etc.

-David

> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-184
> 
> You should also conduct a search of the archives to see if there is 
> anything missing from those issues (and please add anything you do find).
> 
> By reading those (and possibly other) threads you will be able to throw 
> your own thoughts into the mix. Of course, we'd be happy to answer 
> questions that arise as a result of reading those threads.
> 
> >>Why XHTML2? For a full answer see the mail archives but in short it
> >>is because it is modular and therefore allows us to strip out all
> >>the bits that we don't want. That is all the bits that make it
> >>useless as an intermediate language.
> >
> >As xhtml2 is still a working draft ... Why not move to xhtml1.1? Is
> >it not suitable for the required needs?
> 
> No it is not suitable. XHTML1.1 is monolithic. Forrest has to use a 
> clean markup so that no style inforamtion is included in the source (or 
> intermediate format). We also need clearly structured documents that 
> prevent the user from doing something like:
> 
> <h1>Heading type 1</h1>
> 
> <h3>Heading type 3</h3>
> 
> <h2> Heading type 2</h2>
> 
> Failure to do this will result in unpredictable behaviour at the output 
> stage.
> 
> XHTML2 is modular and allows us to select the markup we want to be legal 
> and also provides proper structuring of the source.
> 
> For more see the archives, e.g. 
> http://marc.info/?l=forrest-dev&m=102884176431540&w=2
> 
> Ross

Re: XInclude

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Carlos Tejo Alonso wrote:

>> For a very long time we have intending to move to a subset of XHTML
>> 2. But planning and doing are two different things. We need someone
>> with a suitably strong need to solve the problems posed by XDoc to
>>  actually do it.
> 
> Maybe, we should start to think to do it. Could somebody show the
> steps to move from xdoc to xhtml? I will try to do my bit.

If it were that simple we would have done it by now ;-)

There have been a number of false starts on this. My own effort was 
aborted because a significant number of people in the community 
disagreed with my approach.

Gav made a start on an XHTML2 plugin (in whiteboard) but that also stalled.

Status is discussed in 
http://markmail.org/message/f4shq54nmqebki5o?q=list:forrest-dev+xhtml2#query:list%3Aforrest-dev 
xhtml2+page:1+mid:ttv65i23quvrkzks+state:results

Like any open source project our archives and issue tracker are our 
memory and information pook. Look in JIRA for mentions of XHTML2, in 
particular the following issue identifies the outline steps involved in 
making this move and tracks activity to date (including links into the 
mail arcives):

http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-184

You should also conduct a search of the archives to see if there is 
anything missing from those issues (and please add anything you do find).

By reading those (and possibly other) threads you will be able to throw 
your own thoughts into the mix. Of course, we'd be happy to answer 
questions that arise as a result of reading those threads.

>> Why XHTML2? For a full answer see the mail archives but in short it
>> is because it is modular and therefore allows us to strip out all
>> the bits that we don't want. That is all the bits that make it
>> useless as an intermediate language.
> 
> As xhtml2 is still a working draft ... Why not move to xhtml1.1? Is
> it not suitable for the required needs?

No it is not suitable. XHTML1.1 is monolithic. Forrest has to use a 
clean markup so that no style inforamtion is included in the source (or 
intermediate format). We also need clearly structured documents that 
prevent the user from doing something like:

<h1>Heading type 1</h1>

<h3>Heading type 3</h3>

<h2> Heading type 2</h2>

Failure to do this will result in unpredictable behaviour at the output 
stage.

XHTML2 is modular and allows us to select the markup we want to be legal 
and also provides proper structuring of the source.

For more see the archives, e.g. 
http://marc.info/?l=forrest-dev&m=102884176431540&w=2

Ross

RE: XInclude

[Carlos Tejo Alonso <ca...@fundacionctic.org>]

> >>> 18. - [code] Migrate to a decent schema language, primarily 
> >> so that we can
> >>> use namespaces in XML docs, allowing things like XInclude, 
> >> in-line metadata,
> >>> in-line SVG, Jelly snippets, or anything else users can 
> >> make a Transformer
> >>> for. → open
> >>>
> >>> So it seems that is not done. I don't know the best way 
> >> forward on this, we
> >>> can add it to our DTD, create a new one and add it to our 
> >> schema, point to
> >>> something better existing or .. ??
> >>>
> >>> The patch itself seems flawless in its application, 
> matching the W3C
> >>> examples [1] pretty closely, so I don’t have a problem with 
> >> the way they
> >>> have been applied as such, just need to work out the best 
> >> approach to
> >>> approve the method and get it validated against our tests.
> > 
> > Are you planning to change the xdoc intermediate language? 
> Maybe change to xhtml 1.1? I will be waiting for news in 
> order to do my bit.
> 
> For a very long time we have intending to move to a subset of 
> XHTML 2. 
> But planning and doing are two different things. We need 
> someone with a 
> suitably strong need to solve the problems posed by XDoc to 
> actually do it.

Maybe, we should start to think to do it. Could somebody show the steps to move from xdoc to xhtml? I will try to do my bit.
 
> Why XHTML2? For a full answer see the mail archives but in 
> short it is 
> because it is modular and therefore allows us to strip out 
> all the bits 
> that we don't want. That is all the bits that make it useless as an 
> intermediate language.

As xhtml2 is still a working draft ... Why not move to xhtml1.1? Is it not suitable for the required needs?

Cheers,

Carlos Tejo Alonso
R&D+I Deparment - CTIC Foundation [Asturias, Spain]
www.fundacionctic.org 

Re: XInclude

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Carlos Tejo Alonso wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>> 18. - [code] Migrate to a decent schema language, primarily 
>> so that we can
>>> use namespaces in XML docs, allowing things like XInclude, 
>> in-line metadata,
>>> in-line SVG, Jelly snippets, or anything else users can 
>> make a Transformer
>>> for. → open
>>>
>>> So it seems that is not done. I don't know the best way 
>> forward on this, we
>>> can add it to our DTD, create a new one and add it to our 
>> schema, point to
>>> something better existing or .. ??
>>>
>>> The patch itself seems flawless in its application, matching the W3C
>>> examples [1] pretty closely, so I don’t have a problem with 
>> the way they
>>> have been applied as such, just need to work out the best 
>> approach to
>>> approve the method and get it validated against our tests.
> 
> Are you planning to change the xdoc intermediate language? Maybe change to xhtml 1.1? I will be waiting for news in order to do my bit.

For a very long time we have intending to move to a subset of XHTML 2. 
But planning and doing are two different things. We need someone with a 
suitably strong need to solve the problems posed by XDoc to actually do it.

Why XHTML2? For a full answer see the mail archives but in short it is 
because it is modular and therefore allows us to strip out all the bits 
that we don't want. That is all the bits that make it useless as an 
intermediate language.

>> I'd be happy to remove my -1 on the example and the 
>> validation turn off
>> if there was a nice big *warning* at the top of the sample 
>> page to warn
>> users about this and to point to an issue to fix it.
> 
> I don't know why it not validate. I am using the developer version of forrest in order to user xinclude, and it is working fine in my computer.

If you are running in dynamic mode (i.e. forrest run) the documents are 
not validated. There is no point in doing so as someone could edit a 
document after startup and invalidate it. When you do "forrest site" the 
docs are validated. You can also run validation with "forrest validate"

Ross

RE: XInclude

[Carlos Tejo Alonso <ca...@fundacionctic.org>]

Hi,

> > 18. - [code] Migrate to a decent schema language, primarily 
> so that we can
> > use namespaces in XML docs, allowing things like XInclude, 
> in-line metadata,
> > in-line SVG, Jelly snippets, or anything else users can 
> make a Transformer
> > for. → open
> > 
> > So it seems that is not done. I don't know the best way 
> forward on this, we
> > can add it to our DTD, create a new one and add it to our 
> schema, point to
> > something better existing or .. ??
> > 
> > The patch itself seems flawless in its application, matching the W3C
> > examples [1] pretty closely, so I don’t have a problem with 
> the way they
> > have been applied as such, just need to work out the best 
> approach to
> > approve the method and get it validated against our tests.

Are you planning to change the xdoc intermediate language? Maybe change to xhtml 1.1? I will be waiting for news in order to do my bit.

> Hmmm.... I'm sure I've used XInclude without breaking validation,
> however, it is many years ago now and my memory may be tricking me.
> 
> I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with DTD's.

Me too :-(
 
> I'd be happy to remove my -1 on the example and the 
> validation turn off
> if there was a nice big *warning* at the top of the sample 
> page to warn
> users about this and to point to an issue to fix it.

I don't know why it not validate. I am using the developer version of forrest in order to user xinclude, and it is working fine in my computer.

Cheers,

Carlos Tejo Alonso
R&D+I Deparment - CTIC Foundation [Asturias, Spain]
www.fundacionctic.org 

Re: XInclude

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Gavin wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian M Dube [mailto:bdube@apache.org]
>> Sent: Sunday, 20 July 2008 7:19 AM
>> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: XInclude
>>
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> Brian M Dube wrote:
>>>> Gavin wrote:
>>>>> Well this seemed to pass my tests locally, its late I'll look in the
>>>>> morning
>>>>> and either fix it or revert.
>>>> I committed r678217 to suppress validation on samples-b/xinclude.xml.
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Obscuring a bad commit is not good practice. We should revert the
>>> offending commit or fix the problem it introduced.
>> The problem does not appear to be trivial. The Document DTD would need
>> to allow for XInclude almost everywhere. Is this practical? What is the
>> alternative?
> 
> Well, bad day for me, I 'assumed' we had xinclude support for our
> document-v20, so thanks for reverting.
> 
> In another thread I'm talking about removing the todo list, one of the items
> on that list says :-
> 
> 18. - [code] Migrate to a decent schema language, primarily so that we can
> use namespaces in XML docs, allowing things like XInclude, in-line metadata,
> in-line SVG, Jelly snippets, or anything else users can make a Transformer
> for. → open
> 
> So it seems that is not done. I don't know the best way forward on this, we
> can add it to our DTD, create a new one and add it to our schema, point to
> something better existing or .. ??
> 
> The patch itself seems flawless in its application, matching the W3C
> examples [1] pretty closely, so I don’t have a problem with the way they
> have been applied as such, just need to work out the best approach to
> approve the method and get it validated against our tests.

Hmmm.... I'm sure I've used XInclude without breaking validation,
however, it is many years ago now and my memory may be tricking me.

I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with DTD's.

I'd be happy to remove my -1 on the example and the validation turn off
if there was a nice big *warning* at the top of the sample page to warn
users about this and to point to an issue to fix it.

Ross

RE: XInclude

[Gavin <ga...@16degrees.com.au>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian M Dube [mailto:bdube@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, 20 July 2008 7:19 AM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: XInclude
>
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > Brian M Dube wrote:
> >> Gavin wrote:
> >>> Well this seemed to pass my tests locally, its late I'll look in the
> >>> morning
> >>> and either fix it or revert.
> >>
> >> I committed r678217 to suppress validation on samples-b/xinclude.xml.
> >
> > -1
> >
> > Obscuring a bad commit is not good practice. We should revert the
> > offending commit or fix the problem it introduced.
>
> The problem does not appear to be trivial. The Document DTD would need
> to allow for XInclude almost everywhere. Is this practical? What is the
> alternative?

Well, bad day for me, I 'assumed' we had xinclude support for our
document-v20, so thanks for reverting.

In another thread I'm talking about removing the todo list, one of the items
on that list says :-

18. - [code] Migrate to a decent schema language, primarily so that we can
use namespaces in XML docs, allowing things like XInclude, in-line metadata,
in-line SVG, Jelly snippets, or anything else users can make a Transformer
for. → open

So it seems that is not done. I don't know the best way forward on this, we
can add it to our DTD, create a new one and add it to our schema, point to
something better existing or .. ??

The patch itself seems flawless in its application, matching the W3C
examples [1] pretty closely, so I don’t have a problem with the way they
have been applied as such, just need to work out the best approach to
approve the method and get it validated against our tests.

[1] - http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#basic-example

Gav...

>
> Brian
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.7 - Release Date: 7/8/2008 12:00
> AM

Re: XInclude

[Brian M Dube <bd...@apache.org>]

Ross Gardler wrote:
> Brian M Dube wrote:
>> Gavin wrote:
>>> Well this seemed to pass my tests locally, its late I'll look in the 
>>> morning
>>> and either fix it or revert.
>>
>> I committed r678217 to suppress validation on samples-b/xinclude.xml.
> 
> -1
> 
> Obscuring a bad commit is not good practice. We should revert the 
> offending commit or fix the problem it introduced.

The problem does not appear to be trivial. The Document DTD would need 
to allow for XInclude almost everywhere. Is this practical? What is the 
alternative?

Brian

Re: XInclude

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Brian M Dube wrote:
> Gavin wrote:
>> Well this seemed to pass my tests locally, its late I'll look in the 
>> morning
>> and either fix it or revert.
> 
> I committed r678217 to suppress validation on samples-b/xinclude.xml.

-1

Obscuring a bad commit is not good practice. We should revert the 
offending commit or fix the problem it introduced.

Ross