Return-Path: 
 <forrest-dev-return-3469-apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 98218 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2002 16:00:44 -0000
Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:forrest-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 98079 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2002 16:00:40 -0000
Received: from fep02.tuttopmi.it (HELO fep02-svc.flexmail.it)
 (212.131.248.101)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Nov 2002 16:00:40 -0000
Received: from apache.org ([80.204.154.181]) by fep02-svc.flexmail.it
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with ESMTP
          id <20021113160037.SQEV1505.fep02-svc.flexmail.it@apache.org>
          for <forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:00:37 +0100
Message-ID: <3DD276DA.6030807@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:59:22 +0100
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org>
Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
References: <ADECJLDNBFNBOJBLKCMOCEEADFAA.rob@koberg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N


Robert Koberg wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
> 
> 
>>Robert Koberg wrote:
>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:56 AM
>>>>Robert Koberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>
> <snip/>
> 
>>>This is not my experience with skins. A skin only changes how it
>>
>>looks - it does
>>
>>>nothing to the underlying functionality.
>>
>>Look at the skins for Windows Media Player or AIM for example, they can
>>reduce the overall functionality.
> 
> They do that by exposing or hiding things, just like you can with CSS. They do
> not change how it works.

Ok.

>>For example also for Forrest, we have skins that put the author on to,
>>on the botton, add or not the email, or even change the email from
>>name@domain to nameATdomain for anti spamming.
> 
> These, to me, are configuration attributes for a folder that can be overrriden
> at the page level. Then based on the value the XSL decides what to do.

Ah, but you assume that they are all pre-decided. I want to be able to 
change them if needed in an easy way.

Mind me, I do agree that CSS+attributes is the way we should encourage 
our users to make skins, but I still want to have the XSL solution at hand.

>>But I concede that the general perception of skin is about giving
>>roughly the same stuff with a different appearance.
>>
>>Although I fail to see how your CSS-only skin would make the pages
>>viewable on WAP, which I'm doing right now for some internal intranet pages.
> 
> 
> I only have slight experience with WAP. It seems to me that the skin for a WAP
> device is built in - you only send structure. I also think it is talking apples
> and oranges - for WAP you need a different set of bones. Just as you can't use
> (I think?) a winamp skin with AIM, you can't use an HTML browser skin for WAP.

Yup. I tend to call the "presentation" bones and the skin all "skin", 
and I agree we should instead go with a new terminology and encourage a 
more "layered" use of the current "skins".

> <snip/>
> 
>>Then we can say it's a terminology issue.
>>
>>That said, I still need the possibility of specifying a set of XSLs that
>>work on the output; one set would be the forrest system with the
>>corresponding skins, one would be the ken-wap system, etc.
>>
>>What name do you propose?
> 
> 
> ?? bonesaw :) I guess I am just rambling so I will shut up now (don't all sigh
> at once :)

:-P

I think you are right, and probably skin is a bad name for that 
bone+skin hybrid we have now, but we need a name for those bones...

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