[RFC] SRS Section 2

James Robertson jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Feb 2 09:58:37 PST 2005


Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> 1. Are we using nALFS's DTD are are we creating a new one?

We should be using the DTD, but I think taking Matt's suggestion of 
making it a schema (RELAX-NG or whatever we choose) is the way to go.

> 2. I definitely think there should be *some* type of validation before 
> the server even tries to parse the XML. As far as I'm concerned, there 
> really is no question about that (or about our utilizing XML for 
> profiles). So, should that be done with RELAX-NG? It seems the LFS Book 
> is headed in that direction, so it may make sense to follow that trend. 
> Personally, though, I don't know enough about RELAX-NG to make that call.

I think having the client be able to parse the profile and do a 
validation of it in the same form that xmllint does today is what I am 
thinking.  This is just for sanity checks more than anything.  Having 
the client be able to edit profile files would be a really nice add to 
go with this functionality.  If we stick with a traditional DTD, then we 
get same as xmllint gives us today.  If we go with a schema based 
design, I think we get more options.  We do need to decide the path 
forward.  Either way, I want us to stick to the current DTD's 
functionality with the adds we have already talked about.  I am not 
interested is other profile formats like the ALFS Simple Syntax or other 
things.

Now I know we cannot fix every possible problem, especially some of the 
"configure" script type checks because each server may implement the 
commands differently as Gerard mentioned.  This is correct, but I would 
at least like to know that I have checked a profile against the DTD to 
at least know it is sane and that I did not miss something stupid.

James



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list