Hello again! JM's proposal of FAQ format is only for one FAQ entry. The following one may contain the whole thing: several "recipes" (FAQ entries), each in more than one language. I tried to convert it with ConTeXt, but it doesn't like attributes (I will make a minimal failing example later). <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?> <!DOCTYPE context_cookbook SYSTEM "context_cookbook.dtd"> <cookbook date="2002-10-28" label="jum-000"> <recipe id="test" section="first" subsection="subfirst"> <version xml:lang="de" original="yes"> <question> Wie kann ich dies und jenes erreichen? </question> <keyword sort-as="tech">&TeX;</keyword> <keyword>Test</keyword> <answer> <p>So vielleicht. <code type="tex">blabla</code></p> <p>Oder so. <code type="shell">cat > test.txt</code></p> <p>Oder anders.</p> </answer> <author id="hraban" date="2002-10-20" /> <editor id="nobody" date="2003-10-11" /> </version> <version xml:lang="en" original="no"> <question> How can I achieve that or this? </question> <keyword sort-as="tech">&TeX;</keyword> <keyword>test</keyword> <answer> <p>Perhaps this way. <code type="xml"> <macro>clip</macro> <sqbracket>nx=3,ny=2,x=2,y=1</sqbracket> <braces> <macro>externalfigure</macro> <sqbracket>yourfigure</sqbracket> </braces> </code></p> <p>Or maybe that way.</p> <p>Or somehow else.</p> </answer> <author id="john" date="2002-10-20" /> <editor id="hraban" date="2002-10-21" /> </version> </recipe> </cookbook> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- context_cookbook.dtd: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?> <!ENTITY % sortas "sort-as CDATA #IMPLIED"> <!ENTITY % date "date CDATA #REQUIRED"> <!ENTITY % person "id IDREF #REQUIRED %date;"> <!ELEMENT cookbook (recipe+)> <!ATTLIST cookbook %date;> <!ATTLIST cookbook label CDATA #IMPLIED> <!ELEMENT recipe (version+)> <!ATTLIST recipe id ID #REQUIRED> <!ATTLIST recipe section IDREF #REQUIRED> <!ATTLIST recipe subsection IDREF "none"> <!ATTLIST recipe subsubsection IDREF "none"> <!ELEMENT version (question, keyword*, answer, author, editor*)> <!ATTLIST version xml:lang IDREF "en"> <!ATTLIST version original (yes|no) "yes"> <!ELEMENT question ANY> <!ELEMENT keyword ANY> <!ATTLIST keyword %sortas;> <!ELEMENT answer ANY> <!ELEMENT author EMPTY> <!ATTLIST author %person;> <!ELEMENT editor EMPTY> <!ATTLIST editor %person;> <!ELEMENT code (#PCDATA)> <!ATTLIST code type (tex|shell|dos|xml) "tex"> <!ELEMENT index (#PCDATA)> <!ATTLIST index %sortas;> <!ELEMENT emph (#PCDATA)> <!ELEMENT p ANY> <!ENTITY TeX "tech"> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grüßlis vom Hraban! -- http://www.fiee.net http://www.ramm.ch ---
Hi Hraban! Two notes from me, on xml:lang usage. 1st). xml:lang is not the best solution to language independance. It doesnt take transliteration into account, and it's specification does not cover the full ISO language/country spec. Also, it can be quite hard to intersept xml:lang in a processor. That's why I always use this parameter entity: <!ENTITY % lang "language CDATA #IMPLIED country CDATA #IMPLIED translit CDATA #IMPLIED"> 2nd) Your DTD is not 100% ok. Most of it is just a matter of merging ATTLIST specs, but this one: <!ATTLIST version xml:lang IDREF "en"> is definitely wrong. The IDREF here (and in some other locations) should be CDATA. Generally speaking, ID and IDREF do more harm than good in XML files. It's better to express the Id<->Ref relation in a schema and use CDATA in your Dtds always. Sorry, no positive input from me today (no time) ;-) -- groeten, Taco
Am Mittwoch, 6. November 2002 10:31 schrieb Taco Hoekwater:
1st). That's why I always use this parameter entity: <!ENTITY % lang "language CDATA #IMPLIED country CDATA #IMPLIED translit CDATA #IMPLIED">
That means, one may use language="de" or country="de" or translit="de" at the same time? Why? I'd think one attrib would be enough.
Your DTD is not 100% ok. Most of it is just a matter of merging ATTLIST specs, but this one: <!ATTLIST version xml:lang IDREF "en"> is definitely wrong. The IDREF here (and in some other locations) should be CDATA. Generally speaking, ID and IDREF do more harm than good in XML files. It's better to express the Id<->Ref relation in a schema and use CDATA in your Dtds always.
Ok. I got no documentation on schema yet (the new XML book by O'Reilly comes in a month). I just found the ID(REF) thing in my XML docs and thought it would be the right thing.
Sorry, no positive input from me today (no time) ;-)
Thank you nevertheless. I'd be glad that my first try with XML doesn't have more errors! ;-) Grüßlis vom Hraban! -- http://www.fiee.net http://www.ramm.ch ---
participants (2)
-
Henning Hraban Ramm -
Taco Hoekwater