> On Dec 12, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Long, Martin <mar...@longhome.co.uk> wrote: > > So another 7 patches. This makes it almost 100% UDDF 3.2 compliant. > > I say "almost". There are a couple of places where the schema doesn't > agree with the documentation, where I believe the schema. I believe > there are also some bugs in the schema too. In both cases I'll raise > these with the authors. > > Also, XSD schema are pretty horrible in that certain circumstances > force you to use "sequence" validation, where you actually don't > really care about the ordering. This means we've had to comply with > ordering in certain places. I hate XML.
Welcome to the club :-) > The only outstanding issue is the alarm types. It looks like we need > to map these to equivalent types in UDDF. It's 12:30am, and I'm tired, > so that may come tomorrow. Thank you so much for the hard work. This is truly appreciated. I won’t cut 4.3 until next week, so this will work out. > Finally, there are a couple of commits which group several minor > changes. Sorry for this. The alternative would have been a patch set > of about 20 one-line patches. Which would have been perfectly fine maybe even preferred, but what you sent looks good. /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface