forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Koberg" <...@koberg.com>
Subject RE: documentation/content made available to sitemap (Re: 'broken link' causes..)
Date Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:45:35 GMT
Hi,

<rambling>
What about using subversion as the repos? You can set properties on a 'thing'.
Then some bright cocoon or forrest developer can come up with a way to merge
these properties into some kind of mapping XML to be used in the transformation.

In fact the subversion repos could serve the appropriate version of the site (to
all stagiing environments).

You can also get conflicts back as well-formed XML so sometimes, you might be
able to fix a merge or provide a gui for non-technical users to fix it.
</rambling>

best,
-Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:37 AM
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: documentation/content made available to sitemap (Re:
> 'broken link' causes..)
>
>
>
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 05:01:35PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >>Jeff Turner wrote:
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>>While I'm clarifying.. what's the difference between a 'resource' and
> >>>'content'?  I'm not too sure.. I think 'resources' are things like XSLT
> >>>stylesheets.  Not something served up to the user, whereas 'content' is.
> >>>By that rule, images should be in content/, not resources/.
> >>>
> >>>What do people think about changing that?
> >>
> >>Put the sources in ./documentation/**
> >>
> >>So we have
> >>
> >> ./documentation/index.xml
> >> ./documentation/book.xml
> >> ./documentation/images/myimage.gif
> >> ./documentation/mypdf.pdf
> >
> >
> > But then what about genuine 'resources' like stylesheets, DTDs and skins?
> > Shouldn't they live under 'documentation' too?
>
> Meta-content? Seems reasonable as you say.
>
> So maybe  ./documentation/content/** and  ./documentation/resources/**
> is better after all...
>
> >>etc
> >>
> >>One content, one dir.
> >>
> >>IIRC we had already decided on this, so it should be ok to do it.
> >
> >
> > We agreed on the principle, but I can't recall details.
> >
> > About 30 mins ago I made a change whereby everything in
> > src/documentation/content/ is made visible to the sitemap.
>
> Yup, say it.
>
> > Specifically in order to allow sitemap rules like:
> >
> > <map:match pattern="forms/**.pdf">
> >   <map:read src="content/forms/{1}.pdf" mime-type="application/pdf"/>
> > </map:match>
> >
> > or:
> >
> > <map:match pattern="static/**/*.html">
> >   <map:read src="content/html/{1}/{2}.html" mime-type="text/html"/>
> > </map:match>
> >
> > Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation of "One content, one
> > dir"?
>
> Hmmm... nope, not all yet... we should use the resource-exists action too.
>
> I'll give it a shot.
>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>              - verba volant, scripta manent -
>     (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>



Mime
View raw message