Re: Dia DTD's location? (And some related ramblings.)

[Andrey Repin <anrdaemon freemail ru>]

Greetings, Hans Breuer!

> Hi Andrey,
> > Am 15.02.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Andrey Repin <anrdaemon freemail ru>:
> >
> > Greetings, All!
> >
> > I've been toying around with XML parsing, and I've used Dia shape as a guinea
> > pig. This gave me some ideas, but first, a question:
> > Where's the Dia DTD's are located nowadays?
> https://git.gnome.org/browse/dia/tree/doc/shape.dtd

Thanks!
Though, for embedding, https://git.gnome.org/browse/dia/plain/doc/shape.dtd
would be more correct.

And the document itself is in need of updated links, I see.
(Now, do I have an account on gnome.org? Hmm... Probably yes.)

> > Now, to the shapes themselves.
> > I think, people subscribed to the list had seen this (well, similar) one
> >
> > <shape xmlns="http://www.daa.com.au/~james/dia-shape-ns";
> >    xmlns:dia="http://www.daa.com.au/~james/dia-shape-ns";
> >    xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg";>
> >  <name>Custom - Styles mix</name>
> >  <svg svg:width="300px" svg:height="300px" svg:viewBox="0 0 3 3">
> >    <circle
> >      dia:style="stroke: foreground;"
> >      svg:style="fill: yellow; fill-opacity: 255; stroke-width: 0.1; stroke-dasharray: 1 0.75; 
> > stroke-dashoffset: .5;"
> >      cx="1.5" cy="1.5" r="0.5"/>
> >  </svg>
> > </shape>
> >
> > This was posted as a proposed concept to the request about separating
> > decoration colors from diagram object properties.
> Apparently I missed that discussion or can’t remember it…

There it was: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/dia-list/2015-March/msg00009.html

> > Now, how about this one?
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <!DOCTYPE shape PUBLIC "-//Dia//DTD Dia shape 1.0//EN" 
> > "https://git.gnome.org/browse/dia/plain/doc/shape.dtd";>
> > <shape
> >    xmlns:dia="http://www.daa.com.au/~james/dia-shape-ns";
> >    xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg";>
> >
> >  <name>Custom - Styles mix</name>
> >
> >  <?dia python.script();?>
> >
> >  <svg svg:width="300px" svg:height="300px" svg:viewBox="0 0 3 3">
> >    <circle
> >      dia:style="stroke: foreground;"
> >      svg:style="fill: yellow; fill-opacity: 255; stroke-width: 0.1; stroke-dasharray: 1 0.75; 
> > stroke-dashoffset: .5;"
> >      cx="1.5" cy="1.5" r="0.5"/>
> >  </svg>
> >
> > </shape>
> >
> > Advantages are quite many.
> > 1. Upfront valid XML.
> > 2. Clear separation of object design from object attributes.
> > 3. Embedded scripting! Seriously. XML lets you embed parsing instructions!
> Sorry, I don’t understand any of your proposed advantages.

1. Document processing declaration (<?xml ... ) necessary for correct parsing
    by external tools. Since I'm often writing my shaped by hands, knowing
    that it is at least syntactically correct, without booting it into editor,
    is an advantage. This also applies to #2 and #3.
2. Explicitly defined root tag.
3. Explicit human-readable format purpose declaration.
4. Default namespace may or may not be specified in the DOCTYPE declaration,
    but I prefer it to be there, it gives clarity to the both user and
    machine. No need to second-guess and backtrack.
5. Clearly separating attributes between namespaces, you can explicitly
    control, which attributes of the object are part of its functionality and
    can be controlled with Dia, and which are part of the object presentation
    and are not to be altered.
6. Embedding control logic in a form of Python scripts into shape itself
    allows for greater portability and consistency. To the level of embedding
    shapes into the diagram itself and having them execute same code in a same
    way on every installation.


-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Monday, February 15, 2016 21:50:20

Sorry for my terrible english...