You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org> on 2002/12/04 03:54:51 UTC
Bad dtding
So I was working on converting my page to forrest and
I realize that the dtd is called v11 but yet is different than
the previous dtd labeled 1.1. Specifically <section> elements
have attributes called "title" in the other document-v11 dtd.
However the title is an <element> in the new one. I would
suggest that in the future these changes result in a new dtd
version to avoid confusion.
-Andy
Re: Bad dtding
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:59:11AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>
> Steven Noels wrote:
> >Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >>NOTE: switching the title from attribute to child element is not
> >>_backwards-compatible_ IIUC. Possible rule of the thumb: adding stuff
> >>is never a problem, removing them is.
> >
> >
> >Of course, but IIRC, this change has been introduced during the move
> >from 1.0 -> 1.1 (which was a lengthy move, admittedly). Or not?
>
> I don't remember it so (I have been using Forrest CVS since early days),
> but it's not important at all now, also given that it was a start.
>
> Let's just decide what to do from now on.
>
> I propose to make all DTD removals to necessarily need a version change.
> +1
+1
I think we can version DTDs to any degree of silliness as long as we
update the catalog:
PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Documentation V1.0//EN" "dtd/document-v10.dtd"
PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Documentation V1.1//EN" "dtd/document-v113.dtd"
PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Documentation V1.1.1//EN" "dtd/document-v111.dtd"
PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Documentation V1.1.2//EN" "dtd/document-v112.dtd"
PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Documentation V1.1.3//EN" "dtd/document-v113.dtd"
--Jeff
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: Bad dtding
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
+1
> I don't remember it so (I have been using Forrest CVS since early
> days), but it's not important at all now, also given that it was a start.
>
> Let's just decide what to do from now on.
>
> I propose to make all DTD removals to necessarily need a version change.
> +1
>
Re: Bad dtding
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> NOTE: switching the title from attribute to child element is not
>> _backwards-compatible_ IIUC. Possible rule of the thumb: adding stuff
>> is never a problem, removing them is.
>
>
> Of course, but IIRC, this change has been introduced during the move
> from 1.0 -> 1.1 (which was a lengthy move, admittedly). Or not?
I don't remember it so (I have been using Forrest CVS since early days),
but it's not important at all now, also given that it was a start.
Let's just decide what to do from now on.
I propose to make all DTD removals to necessarily need a version change.
+1
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Bad dtding
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> NOTE: switching the title from attribute to child element is not
> _backwards-compatible_ IIUC. Possible rule of the thumb: adding stuff is
> never a problem, removing them is.
Of course, but IIRC, this change has been introduced during the move
from 1.0 -> 1.1 (which was a lengthy move, admittedly). Or not?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: Bad dtding
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Simple, he was using a development version.
>> I brought this topic up some months ago, because I felt that every
>> change to the dtd had to imply a number change, but the decision was
>> that till it wasn't "released" we kept the same number.
>
>
> I don't think trivial, _backwards-compatible_ changes warrant the
> trouble of increasing version numbers, changing PUBLIC IDs, updating
> catalogs, etc...
>
> Other opinions?
NOTE: switching the title from attribute to child element is not
_backwards-compatible_ IIUC. Possible rule of the thumb: adding stuff is
never a problem, removing them is.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Bad dtding
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Its also the version thats been in centipede for like 6 months or so.
From a user perspective...its very mean. There are infinite numbers
possible, I do not suggest numeric conservation as an appropriate tradeoff.
-Andy
Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Simple, he was using a development version.
>> I brought this topic up some months ago, because I felt that every
>> change to the dtd had to imply a number change, but the decision was
>> that till it wasn't "released" we kept the same number.
>
>
> I don't think trivial, _backwards-compatible_ changes warrant the
> trouble of increasing version numbers, changing PUBLIC IDs, updating
> catalogs, etc...
>
> Other opinions?
>
> </Steven>
Re: Bad dtding
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Simple, he was using a development version.
> I brought this topic up some months ago, because I felt that every
> change to the dtd had to imply a number change, but the decision was
> that till it wasn't "released" we kept the same number.
I don't think trivial, _backwards-compatible_ changes warrant the
trouble of increasing version numbers, changing PUBLIC IDs, updating
catalogs, etc...
Other opinions?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: Bad dtding
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> So I was working on converting my page to forrest and
>> I realize that the dtd is called v11 but yet is different than
>> the previous dtd labeled 1.1. Specifically <section> elements
>> have attributes called "title" in the other document-v11 dtd.
>
>
> ??
>
> Where did you find that 'previous DTD' labeled 1.1?
Simple, he was using a development version.
I brought this topic up some months ago, because I felt that every
change to the dtd had to imply a number change, but the decision was
that till it wasn't "released" we kept the same number.
> Examples of the previous version 1.0 can be found here:
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-cocoon2/src/documentation/xdocs/dtd/
>
> I didn't manage to find any inside stylebook itself, however.
>
> </Steven>
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Bad dtding
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> So I was working on converting my page to forrest and
> I realize that the dtd is called v11 but yet is different than
> the previous dtd labeled 1.1. Specifically <section> elements
> have attributes called "title" in the other document-v11 dtd.
??
Where did you find that 'previous DTD' labeled 1.1?
Examples of the previous version 1.0 can be found here:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-cocoon2/src/documentation/xdocs/dtd/
I didn't manage to find any inside stylebook itself, however.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org