[RFC] SRS Section 2

James Robertson jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Feb 1 11:13:43 PST 2005

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Sorry if I've missed or forgotten the discussion, but are we not going 
> to use a schema syntax like RELAX-NG?  As the LFS Book (at least) will 
> be moving in this direction, and it provides much more in the way of 
> document validation I can't see any drawbacks.  We don't need to 
> maintain compatibility with the original ALFS DTD do we?

I have full profile validation in the SRS, so if this is what we need to 
do to do that, then I say go for it.  We need to spell out the 
requirements for it in the SRS, but don't put in verbiage to a specific 
implementation.  If we make a RELAX-NG schema, I want everything the 
current DTD does plus what extras we are looking at like conditional 
execurition and deps tracking.


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list