seb.sword at koocotte.org
Thu Apr 26 07:48:42 MST 2007
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:47:06PM -0700, Chris Little wrote:
> Do people feel that incorporating a real validator would make osis2mod
> easier to use?
As I use a makefile to build mod, I have added thoses lines to performe
validation in my build process:
xmllint --noout --nonet --valid --timing --schema $(SCHEMA) $<
cp $< $@
but it would be easier for everybody to make osis2mod validate it's input
(with a command line option to disable it to save time). Errors are found
and understood more easily if detected early.
> It could potentially cause the filesize to jump dramatically, so would
> that be acceptable?
In my opinion using a SAX parser to read OSIS files is the right solution,
they are made for this. Maintainability of osis2mod source code would
This will increase filesize or create a new dependancy. Checking WF and
validity against schema probably does not cost much more size. The big step
is using a parser.
Embled systems as PDA or LCDBible should not provide osis2mod. Osis2mod is
designed for mod building; which need more power than provided by a PDA and
more skills than LCDBible users are supposed to have.
For old and smalls computers; we should be able to build a light flavour of
osis2mod, without validation, without curl and without libssl. On my
debian-sarge system, dependancies cost most of the size:
using libxml2 add a code dependancy of 1019K; we could probably find a
smaller library to embled.
> If we incorporate osis2mod into either front-ends or installmgr so that
> users could import OSIS documents directly into Sword, would that support
> or detract from the case for embedding a full validator?
This will in fact increase the binary size of embled sword based frontend.
More information about the sword-devel