| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
|---|
| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | enable jade warnings |
| Date: | 2004-02-29 16:37:43 |
| Message-ID: | 40421557.5040505@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Attached is a crude patch to enable some additional jade/openjade
warnings. This should help us catch improper or ill-advised SGML in
the docs.
I disabled the warning for empty tags, as they are used throughout the
SGML docs and there is no point in getting rid of them. I also
disabled the warning for unused parameter types, as that triggers a
warning in a system DTD on my machine.
Unless anyone objects, I'll apply this within 24 hours.
-Neil
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| jade-warnings-1.patch | text/x-patch | 879 bytes |
| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: enable jade warnings |
| Date: | 2004-02-29 17:01:25 |
| Message-ID: | 200402291801.25559.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway wrote:
> Attached is a crude patch to enable some additional jade/openjade
> warnings. This should help us catch improper or ill-advised SGML in
> the docs.
If that doesn't create any new warnings on the current (fixed) code,
then I agree with this. However, I'd like to see it factored more to
avoid repeating it for jade and nsgmls. The warning flags are in fact
SP flags, not Jade flags; only Jade is built on top of SP. So maybe
assign this to SPFLAGS and add that to both invocations. (This is a
bit analogous to CPPFLAGS vs. CFLAGS.)
| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: enable jade warnings |
| Date: | 2004-02-29 17:14:54 |
| Message-ID: | 40421E0E.1070205@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> If that doesn't create any new warnings on the current (fixed) code,
> then I agree with this.
(Right, it does not.)
> However, I'd like to see it factored more to
> avoid repeating it for jade and nsgmls. The warning flags are in fact
> SP flags, not Jade flags; only Jade is built on top of SP. So maybe
> assign this to SPFLAGS and add that to both invocations. (This is a
> bit analogous to CPPFLAGS vs. CFLAGS.)
Attached is a patch that does this.
-Neil
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| jade-warnings-2.patch | text/x-patch | 1.3 KB |