[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML Property List code in GNUstep Base
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: XML Property List code in GNUstep Base |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:53:26 +0100 |
> On 14 Jul 2015, at 16:47, Stefan Bidigaray <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I was wondering if anyone with the right credentials had seen this e-mail? I
> would gladly make the changes, but I don't know how to add new files to the
> website. To me, the solution seems pretty simple: (1) add "plist-1.0.dtd"
> (or whatever) to the gnustep.org website, (2) modify the code to point to it,
> (3) modify the plist version attribute to "1.0". The only thing I can do
> without introducing introducing the new file is correct the file name from
> plist-0_9.xml to plist-0_9.dtd. I don't feel comfortable bumping the version
> number without also introducing the new dtd file.
>
> Regards
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Stefan Bidigaray <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM
> Subject: XML Property List code in GNUstep Base
> To: GNUstep Developer <address@hidden>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
> I'm working on the CFPropertyList implementation in CoreBase and been
> checking some of the code in NSPropertyList.m to compare against my own
> assumptions.
>
> The code in NSPropertyList.m writes the following in the header:
> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//GNUstep//DTD plist 0.9//EN"
> "http://www.gnustep.org/plist-0_9.xml>
> I see 2 problem here:
>
> 1. First, http://www.gnustep.org/plist-0_9.xml does not exist,
> http://www.gnustep.org/plist-0_9.dtd does, though. Seems like a simple
> oversight, but it should still be fixed.
>
> 2. Why is GNUstep using plist version 0.9? Every example I've gotten from a
> friend's Mac uses plist version 1.0. I compared Apple DTD
> (http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd) against our own and they
> contain the same exact information.
I missed that … I guess I can change it.
The answer to the question about why we are using 0.9 is that, at the point
when we implemented it, Apple was using 0.9 too, and I guess nobody noticed
when they changed at some point.