Closed Bug 74188 Opened 25 years ago Closed 25 years ago

[XUL 1.0] All .dtd files should be renamed to .ent files

Categories

(Core :: XUL, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
XUL
Platform:
x86
Other
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED WONTFIX
Milestone:
mozilla1.0

People

(Reporter: hyatt, Assigned: hyatt)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: WONTFIX ? -- more pain than gain?)

This is going to be a big one. :)
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.0
Blocks: 70753
Way to go! Minor comments: 1. Be advised not to rename those in "xmlterm" or the like whose DTDs do contain definition other than text entities. 2. Is this gonna apply to packaged jar or the source files? My intuition is the latter.
This is going be a big deal for l10n. We have tools, scripts and translation memory databases related to the filename and extension like "dtd" and "properties". Don't know why we need to change the file extension at this moment.
*Why* should .dtd files be renamed to .ent?
This is a fair question. What's the advantage of changing the extension?
Whiteboard: WONTFIX ? -- more pain than gain?
> *Why* should .dtd files be renamed to .ent? Based on my understanding, our *.dtd holds nothing but text entities (so far), and the industry convention is to use ".ent" for such files. There is nothing wrong with the current extension "*.dtd", it is matter of following "convention". BTW, Hyatt: I was referring to MathML (instead of xmlterm) whose DTD might contain definitions other than general entities.
speaking of MathML, I removed all the comments/definitions in the Mozilla's version (knowing that Expat wasn't a validating parser). This reduced the size of the file quite a bit, from 381K to 64K...
If you make this change it will make our job of localization much harder. Is it really necessary to "fix" this bug? Is it possible to mark this is "wontfix"? thanks
Tao and rchen, I will leave this decision to you. If you do not want to make the change to .ent, I will close this bug as WONTFIX. Or if you want to postpone it to post-Mozilla 1.0, I can do that too.
I can see more pain than gain at this moment. It is also arguable that using .dtd to store entity doesn't follow the convention. According to XML document in w3c, ENTITY is one of the four basic keywords in DTD declarations. It is legitimate to have ENTITY in DTD.
Either way is fine; I don't feel strongly about this. I'll leave this to L10n group.
Thank you for being open minded and considerate.
Ok, resolving WONTFIX.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
woohoo! VERIFIED WONTFIX
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
reopening for reconsideration. I was just looking at today's bugs and saw "bug 75188 - mailEditorOverlay.dtd redundant?" and upon clicking, it just seemed inelegant to keep calling these things ".dtd". It is like calling your ".h" files ".cpp"... There have been successful jihads to cleanup such things in a very efficient way. I still have the script that I used for bug 7834...
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
We have decided as a team not to fix this one because of the problems it will present to the localization process. As you know we must ship this product simultaneously in 3 languages. To do so we need to leave this one alone. Remarking it as "wontfix".
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago → 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Reopening because I don't have the right to mark it "wontfix". Sorry about that Hyatt. If you'd like please remark it "wontfix". thanks.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
It's completely up to you, this is your team's domain. Remarking...
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago → 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Component: XP Toolkit/Widgets: XUL → XUL
QA Contact: jrgmorrison → xptoolkit.widgets
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.