forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: libre status (was RE: XHTML2 I have read it and I like it... GO READ IT!)
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:07:45 GMT
Marc Portier wrote:
>>>>How does this affect the libre effort?
>>>
>>>
>>>It redefines it a bit.
>>>
>>>Here each page has its own navigation links potentially, so IMHO we
>>>could decide that a certain page of a directory has its links always
>>>present on the left, and the other ones of the pages get added.
>>>
>>>We gotta discuss this thing, and could maybe decide to not use them
>>>(it's a separate module), but anyway they are there if we an them.
>>
>>OK, well I'll leave that for those who know about Libre then.
> 
> In 2 words libre should produce the structure xml (parts of) that is now
> skattered over the book.xml-s
> 
> since it's program produced, it should be less of a hastle to have it say
> something else then change all stuf in the book.xml here and there.  In
> other words I don't really give that much about it, somewhere down the line
> we'll have to think about the elms and @atts we're going to use to depict
> this structure.  My guess now is that this would be something that can be
> used as much towards html as to e.g. a toc (towards pdf) in which case it
> would probably also be base towards an xml format that aggregates
> (cinlcudes) all into a book or something (dreamin' out loud)

Yes :-D

> Taking the opportunity to give a status update:
> - Bit set off by other work ATM, still reading and thinking about libre
> though
> - dunno when, but will continue that
> - the more sideline talks we have about what we like to do, the more I learn
> - to my feeling the current scratchpad contrbution is nothing more then a
> first prototype
> 
> looking at the lack of adoption it surely lacks the out of the box ease of
> use it should get
> Still hoping thought for others to state opinions on the thing...

Yes, the main thing is that it's not so easy to understand-use.



> Taking it really off topic: (but realted)
> What I'ld like to see (out of my league and time-schedule :-(, so here is an
> itch I don't think I can scratch myself) is some doc that describes the
> "resources" (other then the sitemap: human readable please)
> It should be the base for thinking (and discusussing) about more of what we
> want to slide into TheContract we offer.
> (metrics, junit, jdepends, syntaxhighlights, kinds of navigations, the
> tabs???, ...)
> 
> It could be a basis for deviding work as well...
> 
> If we're doing this meta-web thing (forrest) the full cocoon way, carefull
> thought about the URI space we manage should be our prime concern?

Yes, this is the question I wanna ask you all...

Currently, we have our sources in src/documentation.
Then we copy them to a place where they are built.
As already said, other tool place their docs somewhere too, in the right 
format, and Forrest should be able to pick them up.

The problem is: where?
Which URIs are used?
How do we link (also with libre...)
:-?

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message