On 15-08-30 10:42 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
On 30/08/15 18:30, Martin Holmes wrote:
My objection, BTW, is *not* with using XSLT instead of Perl. My objection, a minor one at that, is with performing the hack on the input PureODD rather than on the output DTD. But that objection is not a show-stopper, it's just a misgiving.
The resulting file would be transient and deleted at the end of the process; it would just be part of a processing chain.
I missed this suggestion earlier. Can you elaborate on what you mean?
Are you suggesting that we post-process p5.xml to introduce <sequence> elements round every <classRef> and then use that version to drive dtd generation? and then throw it away? I believe that sounds like what Baldrick would call a very Cunning Plan, but the devil is in the details...
That's exactly what I mean. If we know what needs to be inserted where (which I'm not sure we do, exactly, yet, but it could be completely figured out presumably), then we can just make a bastardized p5.xml, use it, and throw it away without anyone ever knowing. It's a bit hacky and ugly, but that's all that DTD support deserves, at this point. It should consider itself lucky to be supported at all. :-) Cheers, Martin