Re: Reviewing sgml-lib

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 20:53, Nick Kew wrote:
> I've taken a first look at this, by going through sgml.soc and xml.soc
> and checking for consistency and omissions.  Next stage is to re-generate
> everything from original sources and diff it to what we have.

Could you elaborate, re-generate what, how and with what?  Or did you
mean re-create?

> Question: what's the rationale for the directory naming here?
> e.g. "REC-html401-19991224" rather than "html401" or just "html" ?
> This is surely a working SGML catalogue, not a historical record!

I agree.  There's room for improvement in the naming.  html-4.01,
xhtml-1.0, smil-2.0 etc (all lowercase, <name>-<version>) would be my
suggestion.

> HTML 3.0 is missing - is that intentional

Undecided, I guess, but I don't know why it should be removed.  It was
"cvs rm"d from HEAD almost 2 years ago with a coment "Removing old cruft
from sgml-lib/...".

> The following aliases for HTML 2 DTD exist in Valet but not W3C.
> Are they all considered dead?
> 
> "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//EN"
> "-//IETF//DTD HTML Strict Level 1//EN"
> "-//IETF//DTD HTML Strict//EN"
> "-//IETF//DTD HTML i18n//EN"

Dunno.  They're not strictly 2.0 aliases, but rather slight variants,
right?  I don't think I've ever heard of the last one.

> Hmmm, we have (only) flat versions of XHTML11, XHTML Basic, SVG11 and
> MathML20.  Is this really sufficient, or should I propose the modular
> versions of those four?

As a replacement or addition?  Pros/cons?  BTW, MathML 2.0 in sgml-lib
is not the latest version.

> There are three directories not referenced anywhere (duplicates):
> REC-html40-971218
> REC-MathML2-20010221
> REC-xhtml1-20000126

Do a "cvs up -dP" and they will be gone.
(And while at it, "echo 'update -dP' >> ~/.cvsrc"... :)

> There is also one missing directory referenced in xml.soc
> PR-smil20-20010605

...which is outdated anyway.

I have done some work in a local copy; I've got REC-MathML2-20031021 and
REC-smil20-20010807 (+ catalog entries for these as well as some other
xml.soc cleanups) sort of ready to be committed, but will hold until
there is some sort of consistency how things should be named and what
should be included.  See also bugs 89 and 860.

Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 19:20:20 UTC