[Ltru] Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] DOCTYPE ltru

Martin Duerst wrote:

> Frank, can you post your answer to the list, too?

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:22:54 +0200
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>

Martin Duerst wrote:

> As a co-chair, I marked this off-topic, unless I
> misunderstood you to make this as a proposal for
> the actual registry.

It's what we'd get if we drop record-jar, and what
I'd propose if we go for UTF-8.  Actually it belongs
to the thread "Registry-format", where Debbie wrote
that record-jar isn't human readable.  I think it's
fine, that's why I checked my theory "writing an awk
script is trivial".  It really is trivial, finding a
simple DTD for XML output is the most exciting part.

As a side-effect I have now an output format allowing
to validate registries with any XML validator.

> change the DOCTYPE and root element from 'ltru' to
> something like 'LanguageSubtagRegistry'.

Done, see <http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/ltru>

> 'date' attributes should be changed to the more
>informative 'added'.

For now I stick to date, because I use it for all
registry dates, not only Added fields, also for
Deprecated and File-Date.

> I'd done some of the element/attribute decisions
> differently, but that's not a big issue.

Probably a matter of taste, DTD validators are not
very smart, but they can do something with ID, IDREF,
IDREFS, and NMTOKEN.  Some other sanity checks are
in the script.

Actually the script could check references directly,
and also verify dates, but it's nice that the XML
output now works with the W3C validator.

Frank

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru