Actually, a possible benefit of having them in there is that it suppresses an unnecessary warning that the xmlcatalog utility emits if you run it like this:
xmlcatalog /etc/xml/catalog http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/html/docbook.xsl If you do that and there is no System ID mapping for that URI (even if there is a URI mapping), you get this: No entry for SYSTEM http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/html/docbook.xsl file:///usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheet/nwalsh/html/docbook.xsl And instead of going to stderr, the warning goes to stdout right along with the "file:" output. So, it is actually of (limited) benefit to have the rewriteSystem entries in there, and as you said, they aren't doing any harm. Give that, I guess there's no need to remove them. Mostly I was just thinking that other packagers might use that catalog file as an example and end up unnecessarily including rewriteSystem in catalog files for other stylesheet packages. But I guess that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world either... --Mike Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Michael Smith wrote: > >Mark, > > > >I notice that the catalog.xml in your docbook-xsl package contains > >both rewriteURI and rewriteSystem entries. I'm wondering why the > >rewriteSystem entries are there and if they are necessary. > > Hi Mike, > > The only reason I put them in there is because there was a time when > libxml2/libxslt didn't support uri elements, and so the system > elements were required. IIRC, someone even filed a bug because of > this. In fact, I submitted editorial patches to the XML Catalogs > spec that clarified this very point, so I do grok the issue you raise. > > I do understand the difference between a URI and a SYSTEM identifier > as defined in Production 70 of the XML spec, I was simply trying > to play it "safe". > > I know that it's also an improper implementation of the XML catalogs > spec, too. I filed a bug against libxml2 a long time ago & I believe > it now properly supports the uri element. > > I'll fix the catalogs when I do the next update, as I'm sure someone > will find another bug. For now, the extra "system" entry doesn't > really do any harm. > > Thanks for pointing it out, though. > > Cheers, > Mark > > > > >The only circumtance in which I could see them being needed was > >if someone wanted to define an entity in a DTD subset in a > >document instance (not an XSLT stylesheet) and reference that > >entity in the document instance (as a way of including the entire > >stylesheet in the document). That doesn't seem to me like > >something most people (or maybe, anybody) would ever want to do. > > > >In the case of XSLT stylesheets, they always use the URI as the > >value on an import or include statement, right? So the > >rewriteSystem catalog entries are never used. > > > > --Mike > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
