Re: luxor DTD

Hi Sam,

> The only reason I think this is better other than
> having a static DTD is 
> just the right thing to do, is that editors that
> verify, and parsers 
> that verify, will really freak out if you use tags
> that aren't in the 
> DTD.  Editing the DTD for someone else's spec just
> seems very wrong to 
> me, especially when you could just make a generic
> tag instead.

Could it be possible to handle this using namespace. I
think that there could be a generic namespace for
standard xul components and fancy namespace for custom
components. This way it should be possible to at least
check the standard xul correctness. Then if a
packaging standard is defined for custom component,
the luxor engine could know how to look for custom
components DTD. What do you think about this?

Cheers,

Denis

=====
=========================
|Denis Cardon, Tranquil I.T. Systems 
|10 rue du Docteur Bouchard, 49400 Saumur
|Tel: +33(0)2.41.67.56.99
|Web: http://www.tranquil-it-systems.fr
=========================

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft
Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more.
Download & eval WebKing and get a free book.
www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1