From kde-core-devel Sun Oct 31 09:27:19 2004 From: Michael Pyne Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:27:19 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] XML validity of kcfg files Message-Id: <200410310427.21722.pynm0001 () comcast ! net> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=109921486830566 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart1296534.UDWsBuIdob" --nextPart1296534.UDWsBuIdob Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 31 October 2004 02:52 am, Christian Mueller wrote: > - Do we make the DTD (or XSD) more than just documentation? > Then we should validate somewhere in the process of code > generation, that's even better than having a cron job > report the errors. Personally I'm in favor of making it such that the XML files can be validat= ed,=20 whether it is against the DTD or XSD. History is replete with examples of= =20 times where lax syntax checking lead to problems later on. =46or example, what if a certain flaw ui.rc file works only because of a bu= g in=20 the XMLGUI system, which after being fixed breaks the invalid ui.rc file? = It=20 would be easy enough to fix the file after it everything is said and done,= =20 but it would be better if it had never broken in the first place. This is= =20 especially true for third party programs, for example, where we can't simpl= y=20 run a test script on CVS to catch occurrences of the newfound flaw. > - Or do we leave everything as it is and live with invalid XMLs > which doesn't seem to be a problem (yet?). Well I could live with this solution as well, it's the 'yet' that worries m= e=20 though. ;) Regards, - Michael Pyne --nextPart1296534.UDWsBuIdob Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.9.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBhK/5qjQYp5Omm0oRAjF1AKCZXt91zigfhc7kFLb1IJm80bw0TgCglBAZ lxsg1+C7t5dy7M65a8ZpnWA= =yWkg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1296534.UDWsBuIdob--