OK.
So, it looks like you are saying the glassfish-FOO_X_Y-Z.dtd files should...
1. have file names that end with "-0.dtd" for the planned GlassFish
Server 3.1 release regardless of whether they are 'just copies of
sun-FOO_X_Y-Z.dtd' or are copies of sun-FOO_X_Y-Z.dtd that have been
modified, AND
2. the doctype info in those dtd files should look something like this:
<!DOCTYPE glassfish-FOO PUBLIC "-//GlassFish.org//DTD GlassFish
Application Server 3.1 FOO X.Y//EN"
"
http://glassfish.org/dtds/glassfish-foo_x_y-0.dtd">
Is that a correct assessment of what you have concluded?
Thanks,
vbk
Bill Shannon wrote:
> Hong Zhang wrote on 05/28/2010 06:01 PM:
>>> The tools, for instance, absolutely should not be generating
>>> descriptors
>>> that match these new DTDs by default. Use the old DTDs, they still
>>> work.
>> But if we want to encourage users to start using the new
>> glassfish-*.dtd and move away from the sun-*.dtd, the tools probably
>> should use the recommended set of the dtds? Also if there are new
>> elements introduced in 3.1, the tools want to make them available to
>> the users too?
>
> Yes, after we finalize them.
>
>>> If you need to use the new DTDs, expect them to change until the
>>> code is
>>> frozen.
>> Yes, agreed. There is always chance of them changing between now to
>> code freeze.
>> What about we use "-1" at the end for all the glassfish-*.dtd? The
>> contents could still change, but there will be less chance for
>> incompatible changes when adding new elements, and we could make
>> things a little easier for the tools.
>
> I don't see how using "-1" for all of them makes any difference.
> It doesn't reduce, or increase, the likelihood of incompatible changes.
> And I don't see how it makes it any easier for tools.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>