[RFC] SRS Section 2
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
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.
More information about the alfs-discuss