commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <>
Subject Re: [all] Which website entity?
Date Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:58:28 GMT
Yes, right now the direction we've been taking is to include the common 
navigation using the following Entity Reference strategy:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE project [
<!ENTITY commons-nav SYSTEM "../../commons-build/incl_nav.xml">
<project name="Math">
   <organizationLogo href="/images/jakarta-logo-blue.gif">


I think that incl_nav.xml and navigation.vm are basically the same and 
we should remove one of them.

Betwixt and various others are doing the same similar strategy using a 
different set of files:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE org.apache.commons.menus SYSTEM 
<project name="Betwixt">

       <item name="Jakarta Commons"





This should seriously be consolidated into "one" and only "one" approach 
for generating navigation across the sites.

I think the method should be a transparent as possible for the 
underlying sites as well, with having multiple includes from the dtd in 
the project navigation.xml level, theres too much room for individual 
projects to manipulate what the commons navigation looks like, it should 
look the same for all projects, with this in mind I think there should 
be only one include, like is currently being done with the incl_navi.xml 
approach. Plus the whole dtd thing is somewhat of an overkill for a 
simple entity include.


Henri Yandell wrote:

> Heh. Looks like Dirk created/moved the menus.dtd the other day.
> Any reason why we should be using menus.dtd Dirk?
> Betwixt, Pool, Launcher and DBCP are using it.
> Hen
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>As I started looking at updating some of the websites, I realised that we
>>have two competing approaches:
>>- incl_nav.xml
>>- menus.dtd
>>I have been updating everything to use the former, but I suspect others may
>>be updating towards the latter. Have we agreed on which to use? If so, can
>>we mark the other as deprecated in the file ;-)
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Mark Diggory
Software Developer
Harvard MIT Data Center

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message