DTD/schema change proposal

James Robertson 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.

James



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list