Re: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] DTD-0.3 (alpha) Released.

<cox@idecnet.com> wrote : > Bertrand, nowadays you probably now that I'm leading the development > of the PEAR package. This package makes posible the existance of the > rest of packages and well, the whole pear proyect. As you've been away for such a long time, excuse me, but I was not aware of this. > Let me tell you the history of the DTD stuff: > > One day I was reviewing different pacakge.xml files, and found several > bugs in some of them. Bugs that were bypassed by the our current > home-made xml validation. Also found that the current DTD-1.0 was > heavily outdated. > > After starting to work on enhancing the xml validation, I ended in the > idea that the DTD is there for a reason, to ensure that all is in the > place that is expected to be. So I updated our DTD and started the checks > with "xmllint". > > But because we have developers under different platforms, with > differents software, etc. the idea to require an external program for > all developers to check their package.xml files, was not going to take > success. The same was with domxml, the extension can't be required for > all PEAR developers plus the fact that is experimental and each 2 > months changes (nowadays the DTD stuff even does not appear in the > docu). I finally ended in the idea (crazy for me btw) to code a DTD > parser with DTD validation package. > > I discussed that with Stig years ago, I even tried then to code one > then (btw Stig if you read that, remember that you promised to add the code > for retrieving the DTD according the xml <!DOCTYPE..> ;), with no > success. Some days ago I had an idea and could end the class. > > I have absolutly no personal interest on DTD validation, just see a > need and code a solution for it. I'll even need to fix some issues > with the XML_Parser and XML_Tree for this to be a reality. > > If you still just want to fight for being able to release subpackages > for QuickForm, please go ahead, but if you understood that this was in > benefit of we all (including you) please stop this senseless call for a > flame war. IMO, you should have started explaining why you committed your work without requiring other developers to vote, just like you did in this email, it would have made things clearer from the beginning. Your proposal mail http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=106252222423094&w=2 didn't say anything like that. I am not calling for a flame war, I was simply missing some clarifications, and obviously I was not the only one, Martin seemed surprised too that the package was not voted. Now that I have the explanations both about the XML_DTD package and QuickForm subpackages, it's fine. In order to avoid this confusion in the future, we might try to communicate a bit more about our projects. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam