Maybe we can start by just keeping the comments before or nested in kept element and if the comment is before a dropped element (build) we drop it as well? Will not reach 100% but maybe be sufficient to start?
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064> Le lun. 10 févr. 2025 à 14:47, Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > And if you ask for my own idea, I would tend to preserve the comments, > until there be better solution > but sadly I just think in the shitty xml/xsd world, there might never be a > better solution...... > > Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> 于2025年2月10日周一 21:45写道： > > > > Side note: technically this doesn't help to move content to tags since > we > > have the info of comment location and content already, what we miss is > > "should we keep it or not" and this is the same for custom xsds - being > > worse for XSD when they are nested in kept elements so the other topic > > about custom tags can end up being way more complex IMHO. > > > > YES! you get what I mean and what I worried about exactly. > > And if you ask for my own idea, I would tend to preserve the comments, > > until there be better solution > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> 于2025年2月10日周一 21:32写道： > > > >> Are we saying comments should be written in tags? I think we are > starting > >> to speak about another topic - which is relevant and mainly "how can we > >> handle external XSD securely" - but comment topic stays, as mentionned > >> there are real life use cases for comments where you do not want to go > >> with > >> a custom xsd nor even a tag since you want to write a comment IMHO. > >> > >> Side note: technically this doesn't help to move content to tags since > we > >> have the info of comment location and content already, what we miss is > >> "should we keep it or not" and this is the same for custom xsds - being > >> worse for XSD when they are nested in kept elements so the other topic > >> about custom tags can end up being way more complex IMHO. > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog > >> <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog < > https://rmannibucau.github.io/> > >> | Old > >> Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >> < > >> > https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064 > >> > > >> > >> > >> Le lun. 10 févr. 2025 à 14:15, Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> > >> > well, adding custom elements, makes it cannot pass xsd, right? > >> > or we shall allow any element name? but that would kill typo check, > >> like if > >> > somebody wrongly said, <dependencys>, and spend a whole day finding > >> what be > >> > wrong. > >> > or is there some way to allow some...prefix?or allow-all-namespace > like > >> > <custom:property1> or something? > >> > > >> > Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 于2025年2月10日周一 20:57写道： > >> > > >> > > I agree FWIW, this is a problem XML standards solved decades ago. > >> > Comments > >> > > should be considered invisible, in fact many parsers don't surface > >> them. > >> > > Between processing instructions and namespaces, a tool should have > >> all it > >> > > needs IMO. > >> > > > >> > > Gary > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025, 07:45 Elliotte Rusty Harold < > elh...@ibiblio.org > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:02 AM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Sometimes comments are used to embed additional > machine-readable > >> > > > metadata. > >> > > > > yes and considering somebody would like to use this for a maven > >> > > extension > >> > > > > or something... > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes, that's a pretty common antipattern. Embedding other markup > >> > > > formats inside XML is baroque, confusing, and tool hostile. The > >> better > >> > > > approach is to add additional XML markup to the document. In this > >> > > > specific instance that means Maven would stop erroring if it sees > >> > > > elements it doesn't recognize. That is, it asks the question "Do I > >> > > > have everything I need to build this project?" instead of "Do I > >> > > > understand every element in this pom?" > >> > > > > >> > > > A slightly less radical approach would be to ignore elements not > in > >> > > > Maven's own namespace. > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Elliotte Rusty Harold > >> > > > elh...@ibiblio.org > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
