Re: Update to psgml
>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
<hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes:
Hrvoje> james(a)eecs.ukans.edu (Jerry James) writes:
> Finally, now that I have added a bunch of new DTDs, I'm
> starting to think that XEmacs should only ship with a handful
> of the most widely used ones. What's the point in having all
> those old versions of HTML around, for example? A few people
> might need them, but most won't. I suggest we keep HTML 3,
> 3.2, 4, and 4.01, XHTML 1.0, Docbook 3.1 (and maybe 3.0 as
> well), and ditch the rest, possibly with instructions on how to
> add them back in.
Hrvoje> You are as qualified to make that decision as anyone else.
Hrvoje> Maybe you could do a poll on c.e.x.
Agree with both.
But why not let the user make the choice in the obvious way? Create a
package (named something like addtional-dtds or obsolete-dtds, maybe
with a "psgml-" prefix), and put "This package is deprectated and
sporadically maintained, if at all. If you need this stuff, and can
hack it into submission yourself, send us a patch, we love you! If
you need help, ring jerry.james(a)xemacs.org or the current maintainer
of the PSGML package." in the docs. (Or maybe old DTDs can just be
stuffed in and added to the catalog in a trivial way?)
Hm. In general, shouldn't we have a separate category for orphaned
and apparently useless packages? Then pui could say "hey, this stuff
is unmaintained and possibly dangerous, do you really want to install
it?"
--
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________ _________________ _________________ _________________
What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."