forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: including scripting in output files
Date Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:16:58 GMT
Steven Noels wrote:
> 
> I don't follow your argument about developers vs designers
> though: real authors wouldn't put <?php fragments into their
> content, won't they?

why not?  see the bottom.

> Nope, an XML course hasn't been included into the Forrest
> docs - as with Anakia, Stylebook and other site-generation
> related Apache tools... would this be useful?

i am reading this as facetious.  the above seems tantamount to
the statement 'in order to use forrest [effectively], you must
know xml.'  that's not going to win popularity contests.  i think
it most likely that people coming to forrest (or at least trying
to) will have even less xml experience than i.  they don't *want*
to know xml; they want to know what they need to put where in order
to make their site look/behave the way they want.  many will be
content with <section>, <title>, <p> and the like, at least for
starters.  they're going to want to use forrest because it makes
their job *easier*, not because they can use it as an excuse to
enhance their resumes.

as for php:  take a look at <url:http://www.php.net/usage.php> and
<url:http://netcraft.com/survey/>.  26% (nine million plus) of web
sites use php.  do you think making interoperability easy should be
a goal for forrest?  i do.. but i'm only a user.

Mime
View raw message