forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Piroumian Konstantin <>
Subject RE: Site structure and sub-sitemaps
Date Tue, 28 May 2002 07:44:22 GMT
> From: Steven Noels [] 
> > From: Piroumian Konstantin []
> > What is your opinion on sub-sitemap usage for community
> > section (and for
> > others in future)? Having all the handling in the root
> > sitemap is not a good
> > idea as showed Cocoon's experience (have you seen its root
> > sitemap?). If
> > there are no objections then was is the proposed location for
> > subsitemaps?
> Konstantin,
> this would mean people adopting Forrest for their project 
> documentation
> purposes would perhaps need knowledge about the sitemap syntax. If at
> all possible, I will vigorously -1 this because it might decrease the
> probability of Forrest adoption.

Otherwise we will end up with a huge sitemap. What if we provide a
predefined directory structure for different areas, such as:
	- General Documentation
	- HowTo
	- FAQ
	- Community

Every area can have its sitemap that are mounted from the root sitemap.
Also, the root sitemap can perform some default handling, say for the
General Documentation part. I am just trying to make the structure more
maintainable for developers.

> Trying to catch up mails over the past few days (boy, we've never been
> so active before!), I'm starting to feel a danger of deficient
> packaging/scoping: we are focusing on the documentation (website,
> samples) of Forrest (which we need, of course), but we must not forget
> its basic mode of operations: aggregating XML Apache sub-projects
> documentation and rendering it in a comprehensive fashion. The XML
> Apache main site, the Forrest website, and other sub-project websites
> should be the result of running Forrest on top of these documentation
> 'repositories', the Forrest website basically being the product of
> applying Forrest on itself. I will try to draft an RT on this.

Ok, I'll wait for your RT.

> > Btw, what is the reason to use matchers like 'body-**.xml' 
> instead of
> > 'body/**.xml'? IMO, using directory separators is more
> > readable than the
> > current approach. (E.g., in i18n samples in C2.1-dev I used
> > 'content/*.xml'
> > and 'menu/*.xml' patterns and the result was the same).
> No opinion on that one, since they are internal to the sitemap ;-)

Ok. It's not relevant now for CLI generated site. But I'd like to change it
in future to be able to use links like: /content/primer.html and not


> </Steven>

View raw message