Hello, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts/comments/insights into the
evolution of the schema for the sitemap.xmap file in Cocoon2. Currently, it
doesn't seem possible to validate the sitemap.xmap file against an XML
schema or DTD. This is because each component may have it's own markup used
to configure its parameters. It seems that in order for validation to be
supported, each component will have to define a schema/namespace describing
the parameters it requires. As an exercise, I converted the sitemap DTD
included with the distribution to the XML schema format, and created a
corresponding schema definition for the TraxTransformer. This resulted in a
sitemap looking similar to the following:

<sitemap xmlns="http://apache.org/cocoon/sitemap/1.0"; 
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; 
xsi:schemaLocation="http://apache.org/cocoon/sitemap/1.0
file://uri_to_sitemap_schema_file">

...

                <transformers default="xslt">
                        <!-- some fictitious namespace uri for the
TraxTransformer -->
                        <transformer name="xslt"
src="org.apache.cocoon.transformation.TraxTransformer"
 
xmlns:xslt="http://apache.org/cocoon/transformers/TraxTransformer/1.0"; 
 
xsi:schemaLocation="http://apache.org/cocoon/transformers/TraxTransformer/1.
0 file://uri_to_TraxTransformer_schema_file">
                                <xslt:use-store>true</xslt:use-store>
                                <!-- other TraxTransformer parameters -->
                        </transformer>
                </transformers>

...

</sitemap>

With this format, I was able to edit/validate the sitemap in an XML editor.
Is this how we will work with the sitemap in the future when Coccon2 is
release? Regards,

--mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faqs.html>

To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to