Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 87721 invoked from network); 26 May 2000 16:48:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kevric.com) (38.204.132.2) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 26 May 2000 16:48:26 -0000 Received: from dxw [209.99.117.181] by kevric.com (SMTPD32-6.00) id AA94BA70142; Fri, 26 May 2000 12:47:16 -0400 Reply-To: From: "David Wagner" To: Subject: RE: Cocoon2 Design WAS: [cocoon 2] removing bottenecks Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:44:37 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > David Wagner wrote: > > Ah, but I consider dynamically generated content as part of the > > content layer, encoded in the RDF as is any another resource. > To which Stefano Mazzocchi Replied > Ok, I understand. > > > The > > programming needed extracts the current value of the resource and > > presents it as any other resource request would. How this happens, > > whether we call it a dynamic database request or a static > page request > > is irrelevant. > > Well, it's irrelevant to you that never wrote web-applications :) > Anyway, I understand your point. > Which illustrates the design difference (not a flaw at all, perhaps just a different target user of these systems) I was getting at. Though I have written some fairly involved web applications, most web publishers (as far as I can tell) have not, nor do they know this is what they are doing when tossing a bunch of stuff on a server and saying, "Hey! Let's just put this stuff in a database and make all the pages come out in a standard template!" I am trying to consider what the user of Cocoon2 or another publishing system is likely to do with it, regardless of what the package is actually capable of doing. For the most part (and this is what I _think_ is a reasonable assumption), most of what publishers want to do is publish stuff. Every once in a while someone will think of something truly new to add to a site (a new kind of resource needing high-level programming), but for the most part publishers mix, match, and customize a set of fairly common components along fairly stable layout lines. Also (a personal observation), a frightening large number of web publishers have no inclination to learn any kind of structured techniques, be they programming or markup languages. "Cut and paste until it works in IE4.01 and NN4.06," seems to be the programming 'style' of all of those I have worked with in the US Government and in small to middlin' business. (For business there is a strong incentive for a _lack_ of forward-compatibility: planned obsolescence; the same business is likely to get the contract to rewrite the same site over and over for every major browser release.) > This is another way of expressing a sitemap, right into the document, > unfortunately, this requires client side operation, it has > nothing to do > with server side: what does it mean to "embed" a Gif image into a > document on the server side? write the tag? include the > binary as CDATA? > Client side operation? I never considered running anything client side... Hmmm... That's an interesting idea... Ah, but to answer your question, it could be either, depending on the type of document delivered; xlink:show defines where the resource is to display on the user's system. For XHTML, the server would create the appropriate link to the resource such that it will display in the client at the right place, say as an img element (causing the client to generate a seperate request for the image itself). For WML and PDF versions, an embedded image would be encoded and delivered with the document, as their standards specify. XLINK defines xlink:show="embed" as, "An application traversing to the ending resource should load it for display in place of the starting resource... ...embedding affects only the display of the relevant resources; it does not dictate permanent transformation of the starting resource." [http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/#link-behaviors] I am considering how to use xinclude for resource inclusion in delivered markup to allow SVG and MathML to be (optionally) included directly in the delivered document. Why optional? There's no need to waste bandwidth including your stunning SVG logo on every delivered page when it can be embedded and cached in your client's computer as mystunninglogo.svg. > well, I'm not so sure you fully understand the paradigm shift between > server side and client side.... If we had a perfectly capable XML > browser with all xml, xslt, xslt-extentions, xlink, RDF, SVG > and XSL:FO > in place, there will be very little need for Cocoon or anything like > that. > OOooh... Hmmm... (btw: all my recent work has been on server-side apps, except the client-side search page I needed to write for a CD distribution of the contents of a web site; I am quite familiar with the difference. :) Interesting idea, but I disagree with your conclusion. IMHO, there would be even _more_ need for publication site management tools, though such tools will need to be scalable both UP to the international organization and DOWN to the individual user. Anyone thinking about Cocoon3 yet? (Suggestions: i18n, WAI Triple-A, 100% open standards, stunning front-end, name: Mothra ;) > The problem is we _don't_ have these clients and we must _fake_ them > using server side operation. Unfortunately, things work kind of > different when distributed in client/server enviornment. > This is highly subjective and clearly dependent on your programming > background and mindset. Anyway, XSP and XSLT-extentions are completely > equivalent in functionality, this has already been analyzed, but they > represent orthogonal views of the same world. > Totally. But, sorry, I still don't understand where is the design flaw > you underlined in your first email. > Ah, well, I think these systems have much more in common than different, and I haven't found any design flaws, just a few differences probably related to my timeline being set to incorporate W3C X-standards as they stabilize to minimize the faking needed, and to the intended users of these systems. I am designing so even small organizations (think individual activists) can get the good content they have on the web and available to the greatest number of people efficiently and effectively. Thank you muchly for your thoughtful and considered responses to my lengthy queries and explanations. You have greatly increased my understanding of this project, and of my project as well. It will help when writing and editing the documents y'all need. I continue to look forward to working with you and this fantastic team. -David