cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Ignoring certain tags

Newbie

Ignoring certain tags


When we were checking out Epic, I asked the salesman about being able to
ignore certain tags. What I mean is that we have a tag, that we want to
make sure that the file is valid even when that tag is ignored. I was told
that you could turn off the checking for that tag easy enough. Well the
time has come to implement this. Is there a procedure to do this?

Thanks

Pamela Ross
Business System Analyst
AutoZone Inc
901.495.7796
Tags (2)
6 REPLIES 6
Highlighted

Re: Ignoring certain tags


Pam,

What do you mean by ignore the tag? If the tag is in the data, the parser
will look at it. Is the tag required or optional in the DTD? There are
ways to strip the tag and its contents out of the file. There are also
ways to have the output suppress data based on specific criteria.

Lynn E. Hales
Information Technology Consultant
lhales@csc.com
(757) 262-3495


pam.ross
@autozone.com To: adepters@arbortext.com
Sent by: cc:
owner-adepter Subject: Ignoring certain tags
s


04/03/2002
12:22 PM
Please
respond to
adepters



When we were checking out Epic, I asked the salesman about being able to
ignore certain tags. What I mean is that we have a tag, that we want to
make sure that the file is valid even when that tag is ignored. I was told
that you could turn off the checking for that tag easy enough. Well the
time has come to implement this. Is there a procedure to do this?

Thanks

Pamela Ross
Business System Analyst
AutoZone Inc
901.495.7796
Highlighted

Re: Ignoring certain tags

Pam,
I'd like to respond to this. I'm not clear about what you mean by an
"ignored" tag. Are you saying that the element is declared in your DTD but
hidden in the Epic UI? Or is it that you expect the parser to ignore the
presence of the tag? Or what?

Highlighted

Re: Ignoring certain tags


Paul, Lynn

I have content that will be wrapped by a tag. This tags soul use will be as
a 'wrapper' tag. I want to be able to test validity of the content with
out the wrapper.

example:


<wrapper>
<document>
<para>
</para>
</document>
</wrapper>


I want to test that the following is also valid


<document>
<para>
</para>
</document>


Just as if the wrapper tag was not there.

Is this clearer?
Thanks guys

Pamela Ross
Business System Analyst
AutoZone Inc
901.495.7796


Paul Klock
<pak@arbortext.com to:=" adepters@arbortext.com,=" <br="/> > adepters@arbortext.com
Sent by: cc:
owner-adepters@arb Subject: Re: Ignoring certain tags
ortext.com


04/03/02 11:41 AM
Please respond to
adepters



Pam,
I'd like to respond to this. I'm not clear about what you mean by an
"ignored" tag. Are you saying that the element is declared in your DTD but

hidden in the Epic UI? Or is it that you expect the parser to ignore the
presence of the tag? Or what?

Highlighted

Re: Ignoring certain tags

Is <wrapper> defined in the DTD? Are both cases valid given the content
models of the DTD?

Is the purpose of <wrapper> simply to provide some arbitrary boundaries
while the document is loaded in Epic? If so you might consider using an
ATI "built-in" paired processing instruction, e.g., <_display>, for this
purpose.

Highlighted

Re: Ignoring certain tags


Ok Paul,

Is <wrapper> defined in the DTD? Are both cases valid given the content
models of the DTD?

Yes and Yes

Is the purpose of <wrapper> simply to provide some arbitrary boundaries
while the document is loaded in Epic? If so you might consider using an
ATI "built-in" paired processing instruction, e.g., <_display>, for this
purpose.

Yes, this is what we are doing. The thought of the paired processing
instruction has come up as an option here, I was lead to believe that there
was a method that would allow you to do this without the use of the use of
the PI. The flow has been going toward using the PI pairs, but I wanted to
pursue this one to be sure it was the best way. ( the change will effect
many processes)

Thanks

Pamela Ross
Business System Analyst
AutoZone Inc
901.495.7796


Paul Klock
<pak@arbortext.com to:=" adepters@arbortext.com,=" <br="/> > adepters@arbortext.com
Sent by: cc:
owner-adepters@arb Subject: Re: Ignoring certain tags
ortext.com


04/03/02 03:28 PM
Please respond to
adepters



Is <wrapper> defined in the DTD? Are both cases valid given the content
models of the DTD?

Is the purpose of <wrapper> simply to provide some arbitrary boundaries
while the document is loaded in Epic? If so you might consider using an
ATI "built-in" paired processing instruction, e.g., <_display>, for this
purpose.

Highlighted

Re: Ignoring certain tags

Since you say "yes and yes" I don't see where there's a need to "ignore"
anything. It's valid with or without <wrapper>. But I'm probably still
missing something.

That said, I would encourage taking a serious look at the paired-PI
approach, IF the "many processes" that use them are intended to run in
Epic. In Epic, the built-in paired PIs (e.g., _display, _link, _font,
_touchup) are treated exactly like containing elements by processing using
ACL or DOM. Furthermore, in the case of _display, you can store data in
"application attributes" attr1-attr9, you can apply visual cues of any sort
(e.g., font characteristics, foreground and background colors, underline
and strike-through), and if you want you can specify that it will not be
written on save (so you don't have to clean these up).

You can use the PIs as a "base" for user-defined tags (UDTs) which can be
given default characteristics, e.g., the following would insert a UDT
called <wrapper> which is defined to display blue bold font, yellow
background, and underline, and to be saved on write:

function insert_wrapper(doc=current_doc()) {
if (! tag_exists("wrapper", doc)) {
current_doc(doc)
define_tag wrapper _display
modify_tag -global wrapper Weight="bold" FontColor="blue" \
BackColor="yellow" Underline="yes" Save="yes"
}
insert_tag("wrapper", doc)
}

However, if you want your use of <wrapper> to be processible by non-Epic
parsers this approach is probably not a win, as the PIs will appear to
non-Epic processors not as a containing tag but as two separate (and
meaningless) processing instructions.

Announcements