On Mar 17, 2004, at 7:11 PM, Bruno Dumon wrote:
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 20:51, Joerg Heinicke wrote:On 15.03.2004 17:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27600
syntax for unique rows in repeater binding
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-15 16:57 -------
More and more I doubt that this might be the way to go, chasing any kind of
xml-file though the XSLT processor to update some minor syntax changes in
repeater binding. I bet there only few users need do update only a few files. I
think it's not worth the risk. I'm quite sure there are still more uncoverd
issues in connection to the XSLT processing of unpredictable user files. While
we don't have a solution, I think we should disable the automatic update feature.
Ok, asking the list: in which way shall we handle the update in the
repeater syntax? The problem is that through an XSLT process the DOCTYPE
must get lost, no chance to save it. I don't find it that problematic as
no Woody file does have a DTD, but of course users can have added their
own ones.
a) Ignore the problems (removal of DOCTYPE).
b) Point out the possible problem before asking the user for the src.dir. The user will probably have to start the update process multiple times for specifying deeper directory hierarchies to avoid touching unrelated files (or we provide a loop).
c) Let him specify a binding.dir or patternset explicitely (binding
files are the only files that must be processed by an XSLT at the moment).
d) Do not handle the syntax change automatically at all.
e) Use a text-based search and replace. This preserves the layout of the
XML (which I consider to be rather important since these files are
mostly hand-edited).
+1 for e) With this approach whitespace can be preserved, too. (<tag/> != <tag />)
