[RFC] SRS Section 2
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