forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Piroumian Konstantin <>
Subject RE: doctype questions
Date Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:32:33 GMT
> From: Ian Atkin [] 
>   no docbook/document flame war please, i've scanned some of the 
> archived threads and am just trying to fathom what's going on
> i've got an idea forming but i need some answers before it's 
> coherent/relevant

I'll try to answer:

> many doctypes from many projects, are forrest ones considered "gospel"
> - a couple have 'cocoon' in their name, who "own" these 
> forrest or cocoon?

I suspect that cocoon files were added for migration purposes and they will
be removed when v11 DTDs are finalized.

> - does forrest have to keep up with other projects, or the 
> other way round?

This question is a little out of my competence. Forrest should be flexible
enough to meet the needs of other projects, but not "everything for
everyone" (C) Steven. 

> should user's of forrest be forced into using <document> et al?
> - if users are to have no other option than what forrest 
> provides, i'd 
> want a damn good reason if I was them

It's more a political question. We can't force anybody to use Forrest, but
should provide enough good reasons to convience people to use Forrest.

> - couldn't forrest come with a few markups, one of which is 
> "prefered" 
> or "approved"
> - shouldn't users be allowed to use what they want (mainly 
> thinking of 
> non-apache uses of forrest here)?

Users can edit the sitemaps and customize the build for their needs. But why
they would need Forrest in that case?

> should it be possible to use different markup mechanisms?
> - do we have to use doctypes for validity (they are crap after all)? 
> what about xml schema, relax, xpath (eg schematron)?

Look in mail archives, there were a long discussion on this. I hope that
someday we'll use something better thatn DTDs.

> - is there any benefit in splitting "author-time" validity 
> from "build 
> time" validity, as in documenters use what they like when they write, 
> but forrest uses it's "prefered" mechanisms when it runs 
> (dynamic or static)

Sorry, lost you here.

> should different documents within a project/site be allowed to use 
> different doctypes or should they all use the same one?
> - would make contrib of authors with different preferences much easier
> - processing would leap in complexity, but that may be a cheap price 
> considering a happy family as a result

There will be/are automounted directories where projects can have customized
sitemaps and content.

> does forrest sitemap have to be monolithic?

Does not. This was discussed recently and will be changed as time allows.
Help is appreciated.

> - i know about cocoon's sub-sitemap feature, want to know if there's 
> good reason not to use it

No reasons already.

> - the mapping of xml file to xslt script occurs here
> - can do stuff without affecting existing sitemap but it will 
> be an ugly 
> hack

Again don't get the second point. Can you elaborate?

> does the "live" forrest have to be all dynamic or all static?

It's static on cause there is no running servlet container on
the host. Dynamic version is available at: .

> - mainly thinking of pure docbook generation, which may always be too 
> much for java-based xslt (i've recently started using xsltproc due to 
> the speed grief of large docs)


Let's see what others think on this all.



View raw message