Question about introspect.dtd?

[Thiago Macieira]

On Friday 17 October 2008 13:31:31 Markku Savela wrote:
> > Forget the DTD. DTD simply can't represent the XML format we want to
> > enforce.
>
> Then there should be some schema defined. But, there is none!

Because no one has taken upon themselves to write it in XSD or some other 
suitable format.

> But, I don't understand the objection. With simple changes, the DTD
> can be easily fixed to pass validation of existing introspection
> files, why not do it?

Last I checked, it couldn't be done at all with DTD. We had some requirements 
that DTD couldn't represent.

> As far as I can see, the only small problem with DTD is, that it
> cannot express the difference in "arg" between member and signal,
> causing the validation to pass potentially incorrect signal definition
> (with direction) or method argument without direction.

You start to see the trouble.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
  Senior Software Engineer - Nokia, Qt Software
  Qt Software is hiring - ask me
      PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
      E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20081017/a86461c0/attachment.pgp