On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Richard Frith-Macdonald < richardfrithmacdon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 14 Jul 2015, at 17:04, David Chisnall <thera...@sucs.org> wrote: > > I’d also be interested to see what NetBSD’s XML plist library does. I > believe that they just use the Apple DTD, which might be a better option > for us - it’s easier for code consuming plists to validate that the DTD > string is the same than to fetch and validate that the DTDs are equivalent. > > Yes, the format (and presumably the dtd document location) has been stable > for several years now … I suppose there’s no reason we can’t point to it. > > I would argue that providing our own DTD file is a more prudent choice. For one, it provide a certain level of autonomy. For example, is the 0.9 version of Apple's DTD still available? What guarantees that version 1.0 of the file will be available 5 years from now if the version is bumped? A XML plist parser does not need to be a full XML parser, and can skip the DTD validation altogether (which is what I plan on doing in CoreBase). The format is brain-dead simple and a XML plist parser can go through data efficiently without ever having to validate, returning NULL on a syntax error.
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev