forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: including scripting in output files
Date Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:33:23 GMT

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 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.' 

Ahem, just ATM.
Since the first users of forrest, anakia, or whatever knew XML, this 
issue never came up here.

> 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 I said, I'm working on a wiki-like format for content editors, and in 
the near future on direct editing in the browser.

> as for php:  take a look at <url:> and
> <url:>.  26% (nine million plus) of web
> sites use php.  do you think making interoperability easy should be
> a goal for forrest? 

Sure. Can you please explain better what you mean by "interoperability"?

> i do.. but i'm only a user.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message