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

Reply via email to