DTD/schema change proposal
jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Feb 7 09:29:04 PST 2005
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I'm also wondering... perhaps a general review of the current DTD is in
> order? I want the new alfs to support the nALFS DTD, definitely, but
> perhaps as a plugin. Instead of just using the old DTD as native for
> the alfs schema, we can review it and either simplify it or extend it as
> the need may be. Now might make a good time then, to look over the
> current DTD and look for improvements or changes.
> I don't know much about DTD's or schemas, so I'm not sure what's really
> appropriate here, what do you guys think?
I know the DTD needs some work. I for sure want to get all
issues/updates to it while we convert it to a schema. There are a few
BZ entries already for it. I am open to that. I think a pluggable arch
for alfs is a good thing. It makes it very extensable. I for one, do
not want to learn a new xml syntax, so I want my DTD! I do know others
want other ones as well, so that seems logical.
From what I can see in BZ we have:
611 - Wildcards support for <file>, <base> etc
629 - Support for interactive commands in <execute>
636 - <search_replace> and multiple lines
647 - Add logging for <stage>
652 - Add umask support to <stage>
847 - <search_replace> supports different modes
I think recently we saw an issue in <search_replace> that did not remove
lines, instead we had to use sed. This needs a BZ. I also remember
something on how the DTD allows <base> to be handled and some other
stuff. Kevin knows it better than I.
More information about the alfs-discuss