Re: "easy-fix" bugzilla keyword becomes "gnome-love"

On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 16:47 +0100, Michèle Garoche wrote:
>Le 11 mars 2005, à 4:05, David Malcolm a écrit :
>
>> So if you're looking for something to get hacking on, have a look at  
>> the
>> query:
>> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/reports/keyword-search.cgi?keyword=gnome- 
>> love&product=conglomerate
>Among those, maybe I can have a look at this one:
><http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114672> : docbook elements  
>missing.
>
>This leads to two observations:

>1 - I may add missing elements to the version of docbook used in the  
>dispspecs, i.e. 4.1.2
>
>2 - This 4.1.2 version is pretty old, current version is 4.4.
>Hence not giving access to the newer elements.
>How should this be handled?

Good point.  We need a smarter way of handling all the different DocBook
versions out there.

Maybe either take the union of all elements from all versions of DocBook
ever, or maybe something smarter; it'd be nice for Conglomerate to
"know" about the different types.

So how about having multiple DocBook.xds files, which specify a dispspec
for each version of the DocBook format.... BUT... each one simply
includes a shared "do everything" external entity that has the union of
the elements.  I don't know how well that would play with the i18n
framework though.

What elements are we missing?


>
>a - Another dispspecs?
>b - A variant on the docbook dispspec excluding obsolete elements and  
>including new ones

Not sure this would be needed; take the union.  Most of the data should
really be coming from the DTD/schema, and that would give the correct
set of elements.  The dispspec just tells you how to visualise an
element, it doesn't replace schema (apart from the case where you don't
have a DTD/schema, in which case you end up with the "here's a set of
elements in a dispspec" "pseudo-schema").  Unless the visualisation of
an element should vary between versions of a doctype (ugh!)


>c - Nothing at all, leaving it to the user to put the correct  
>specification and to validate it?
>
>Michèle