[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: draft proposal for catalog resolution [market distinction]



lee@sq.com wrote:
> Why isn't the catalog file itself in XML?

I think that the CATALOG is easier to process, for our Perl Hacker, even
if she has a rudimentary XML parser, because she may only have code to
parse a fixed DTD. I will go this far with you, though: there are too
many undifferentiated ASCII/Unicode file formats in the universe.
Catalogs should at least look like this:

<!DOCTYPE CATALOG PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XML CATALOG 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/unknown/right/now">
<CATALOG>
PUBLIC ...
PUBLIC ...
OTHER ...
</CATALOG>

For parsing simplicity we could require the DOCTYPE to be hardcoded and
the start tags and end tags to be on their own. The DTD would of course
be a very simple wrapper.

At some later date we could even figure out how to express the catalog
in terms of an SGML declaration and DTD that actually captured the
structure of it so that the conversion from catalog to grove could be
well defined.

 Paul Prescod


References: