David Crossley wrote: > > > Another solution that came to my mind is pointing to a web URL like > > > http://cocoon.apache.org/dtd/document-v10.dtd. This would also make > > > validating possible in editors that don't understand catalogues. > > > > this seems to be a good approach for me. > > Would it be acceptable to infrastructure@ apache? It is not just > one simple DTD you are downloading, there are many included bits. > > I do not agree with the approach. Cocoon has encouraged people to > use the entity resolver. We should not join their bad practice. > > A better solution might be to move away from DTDs. Oh drat, some > editors only support DTDs ... foiled again. > > > I'm not sure, but I think > > the forrest people have already put their dtds somewhere at > > *.apache.org. Perhaps this as well? > > No, Forrest does use such URIs now, but there is deliberately > no resource at the end of it. We encourage the use of proper > tools, such as the catalog entity resolver. >
Ok, you suggest using an entity resolver. Of course this is a good solution, but you can't change/force tools to use it. And a usable DTD needs a defined URI and at least a defined place where to find this DTD (which could be the defined URI). But only defining a URI and then saying, "get the DTD from whereever you find, maybe CVS in directory bla/blub/xyz/..." seems not very user friendly for me. So, I think we should a) define a URI, b) place the dtd at that URI and c) encourage to use the entity resolver; but without steps a) and b), the whole thing doesn't make sense for me. Carsten
