Menu
▾
▴
scrollkeeper-devel
|
From: laszlo k. <las...@su...> - 2000-10-17 17:15:23
|
Hi, I checked in most of the implementation of the proposal from: http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/5674/2000/8/0/4271223/ The following is not implemented: - OMF file validation (I don't know how to do this so hints are welcome) - the extended content list is not implemented at all The Scrollkeeper files go into prefix/var/lib/scrollkeeper. We seem to have a problem with the locales. Namely OMF language tags from the metadata do not match the OS (Linux, Solaris etc) locales. At the moment the language tags are used to create the directories for each locale (e.g. prefix/var/lib/scrollkeeper/en for English). This should be changed to using the OS locale tags and Scrollkeeper should map the OMF language tags to the OS locales. I don't know if this is already implemented or not (at least for Linux as part of another project). I tried to find out from gnome#i18n with not much success. Please share any ideas. There are a couple of small problems with the code that I know about and I am working on them, please give it a try and let me know what you think. Thanks, Laszlo |
|
From: Ali A. <ali...@au...> - 2000-10-19 17:39:44
|
* laszlo kovacs (las...@su...) wrote at 00:02 on 17/10/00: > Hi, > > I checked in most of the implementation of the proposal from: This is excellent news! :) I need to check out the code sometime soon. I was just curious, but perhaps this should be announced to various Documentation projects (just in case people want to throw in their comments and/or want to contribute). Of course this should only be done when the code is in a "state" to accept contributions. > http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/5674/2000/8/0/4271223/ > > The following is not implemented: > > - OMF file validation (I don't know how to do this so hints are welcome) Umm - the OMF file is an XML file, correct? libxml should handle validation I believe (assuming you are using the DOM parser) ? Even if you are using the SAX parser you can enable validation but it is kind of "ugly". Basically I had to create an xmlParserCtxt (see gdb3html.c in the "parse_file()" function on how I did it), turn on validation there, I think the errors in validation are handled by the errorSAXFunc or something like that. With gnome-db2html2 I "silence" these validation messages because: 1) We have DocBook SGML so we get a lot of 'error' messages due non-XML compliance 2) I think validation in libxml 1.x only works to validate that the document is proper XML (i.e. it doesn't validate the DTD). Check with Daniel Veillard about this. > - the extended content list is not implemented at all > > The Scrollkeeper files go into prefix/var/lib/scrollkeeper. Umm - which scrollkeeper files are you talking about? Are these the OMF files? Shouldn't they go into prefix/share/scrollkeeper? > We seem to have a problem with the locales. Namely OMF language tags > from the metadata do not match the OS (Linux, Solaris etc) locales. At > the moment the language tags are used to create the directories for each > locale (e.g. prefix/var/lib/scrollkeeper/en for English). This should be > changed to using the OS locale tags and Scrollkeeper should map the OMF > language tags to the OS locales. I don't know if this is already > implemented or not (at least for Linux as part of another project). I > tried to find out from gnome#i18n with not much success. Please share > any ideas. How are the OMF tags different than the OS locales? > There are a couple of small problems with the code that I know about and > I am working on them, please give it a try and let me know what you > think. I'll take a look at my first 'free' opportunity. Thanks for finally checking this in :) Regards, Ali |
|
From: laszlo k. <las...@su...> - 2000-10-19 18:18:34
|
> This is excellent news! :) I need to check out the code sometime soon. I was > just curious, but perhaps this should be announced to various Documentation > projects (just in case people want to throw in their comments and/or want to > contribute). Of course this should only be done when the code is in a "state" > to accept contributions. The biggest problem is probably that is not that easy to test it as there is not much documentation out there with the related OMF files. Maybe we should generate some and put them on the project web page? There is a quite large number of OMF files in the OMF repository (link from the project web site). Otherwise the code is ready to be tried. > Umm - the OMF file is an XML file, correct? libxml should handle validation I > believe (assuming you are using the DOM parser) ? > > Even if you are using the SAX parser you can enable validation but it is kind > of "ugly". I am using the SAX parser and I was thinking about a DTD based validation. I don't know if libxml supports anything like this. [snip] > > The Scrollkeeper files go into prefix/var/lib/scrollkeeper. > > Umm - which scrollkeeper files are you talking about? Are these the OMF files? > Shouldn't they go into prefix/share/scrollkeeper? No, these are the files generated by Scrollkeeper and passed away to the Help Browser. The OMF files are not moved by the current implementation. > How are the OMF tags different than the OS locales? OMF language tags are described here: http://www.landfield.com/rfcs/rfc1766.html They are much broader and have a bit different format than the locales (like en-US in OMF and en_US as OS locale). Laszlo |
|
From: Dan M. <d-...@uc...> - 2000-10-19 18:46:55
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Ali Abdin wrote: > * laszlo kovacs (las...@su...) wrote at 00:02 on 17/10/00: > > Hi, > > > > I checked in most of the implementation of the proposal from: > > This is excellent news! :) I need to check out the code sometime soon. I was > just curious, but perhaps this should be announced to various Documentation > projects (just in case people want to throw in their comments and/or want to > contribute). Of course this should only be done when the code is in a "state" > to accept contributions. We definitely should do this, but I think we should wait until we have at least a complete pre-release of 0.1. Hopefully we can resolve the remaining issues quickly. > > The Scrollkeeper files go into prefix/var/lib/scrollkeeper. > > Umm - which scrollkeeper files are you talking about? Are these the OMF files? > Shouldn't they go into prefix/share/scrollkeeper? This is something we should discuss on this list. ScrollKeeper generates and updates a number of files which store things like the contents list describing all docs on the system. Where does this file belong? My original proposal had everything under something like prefix/share/scrollkeeper. However, I don't think we can put files which scrollkeeper edits under here can we? Apparently /usr must be mountable read-only. I don't know if /share has the same requirements, but I'm guessing it does. My understanding is that we should use /var for these files which scrollkeeper frequently modifies. The original OMF files which the packages install (as well as the docs themselves) are only read by ScrollKeeper, not moved or edited. Dan |