[question] Why is group-logo required in the skinconf?

["Brian S. Hayes" <br...@comcast.net>]

Why is the group-logo required in the skin configuration
(skinconfig-v06.dtd)?  The comment in the default skinconf.xml states
"optional group logo."  Based on this comment, I would think that you could
safely delete or comment out, the following elements: group-name,
group-description, group-url, and group-logo.  As it is now, you cannot
comment out group-logo (if you do, validation will fail).

I looked through about six or seven emails (of many) in the archives; but, I
did not see the reasoning.

/Brian

RE: [question] Why is group-logo required in the skinconf?

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

Brian S. Hayes wrote:
> > From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley<AT>a.o]

Erk, please do not add un-necessary spam fodder :-)

> 
> I would also prefer if the project-logo was optional since I like the idea
> of non-graphic logos whenever possible.  I think the ideal case would be
> that the project-name or the project-logo is required.

Are the skins expecting the project logo? If not, then we can
make it optional in the DTD. If they are expecting it, then we
need a patch to the skins. I agree that it should be optional.

--David

RE: [question] Why is group-logo required in the skinconf?

["Brian S. Hayes" <br...@comcast.net>]

> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
> Brian S. Hayes wrote:
> > Why is the group-logo required in the skin configuration
> > (skinconfig-v06.dtd)?  The comment in the default skinconf.xml states
> > "optional group logo."  Based on this comment, I would think that you
> could
> > safely delete or comment out, the following elements: group-name,
> > group-description, group-url, and group-logo.  As it is now, you cannot
> > comment out group-logo (if you do, validation will fail).
> >
> > I looked through about six or seven emails (of many) in the archives;
> but, I
> > did not see the reasoning.
> 
> You are right. Thanks, fixed now. This DTD was recently created
> by extracting the internal DTD from the skinconf.xml and that
> error was introduced.
> 
> I also noticed that the parts of the project-logo were once
> mandatory and are now optional. Not sure why.

I would also prefer if the project-logo was optional since I like the idea
of non-graphic logos whenever possible.  I think the ideal case would be
that the project-name or the project-logo is required.

/Brian

Re: [question] Why is group-logo required in the skinconf?

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

Brian S. Hayes wrote:
> Why is the group-logo required in the skin configuration
> (skinconfig-v06.dtd)?  The comment in the default skinconf.xml states
> "optional group logo."  Based on this comment, I would think that you could
> safely delete or comment out, the following elements: group-name,
> group-description, group-url, and group-logo.  As it is now, you cannot
> comment out group-logo (if you do, validation will fail).
> 
> I looked through about six or seven emails (of many) in the archives; but, I
> did not see the reasoning.

You are right. Thanks, fixed now. This DTD was recently created
by extracting the internal DTD from the skinconf.xml and that
error was introduced.

I also noticed that the parts of the project-logo were once
mandatory and are now optional. Not sure why.

--David