"Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 23/03/2002 05:14:35 PM:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:45 PM > Subject: RE: Latka Questions > > > <snip/> > > > A short bit of recent history on Latka. > > > > We never used to have much in the way of docs, so that was my first > > priority. We never used to have much in the way of validation, so I've > > helped in the build a bit there as well. We have 'undocumented' coding > > standards, which I'm attempting to a) document and b) verify using > > checkstyle. > > > > So we're getting there gradually. I'd actually like to get a release 1.0 > > out the door RSN. > > Me too! :) And you've definitely been doing a fantastic job on the docs > and such. > > Although I'm not certain what you mean by not having much validation. In my > view, one of Latka's strengths is its rigourous DTD and its validation, > which has been there from the first. Are you referring to another kind of > validation than XML? The docs/samples etc. We should have an XMLValidate target in the build file as a check to make sure everything matches it's DTD. I've done the work to get local entities into Ant over the last couple of months, so we can now use style without requiring net access to the docbook DTDs (you can reference them locally). This will make validating all our docs nice and easy. Validation *done* by Latka is fine, it's the source I'm worried about. Some of the original docbook files weren't compliant with the DTD. > - Morgan Now, back to that release plan :) -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://www.multitask.com.au/developers
