forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <>
Subject Re: Including legacy html
Date Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:18:30 GMT
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

>"Andrew C. Oliver" wrote:
>>Ken, the biggest problem with including raw html is that its not "well
>>formed" which means its not valid XML.  XML-foo doesn't like that.
>i think we're not communicating.  stylesheet instructions are in xml.
>what they *act on* does not need to be, does it?  i'm talking about
>an instruction 'include this external thing verbatim on the output
>side of the loop; don't try to do anything with it, it isn't for
>you.  just include the frickin' thing right here in the output.'
But then you're asking XML to take non-well formed stuff and put it in, 
make the document
non-compliant ill-formed HALF XML/HTML (which will confuse the crap out 
of some browsers).

Really Ken, in another year or two all that poor-formed HTML (because 
well formed is XHTML which
is XML) will make this discussion the equivlent of discussing how to 
make sites render nicely on 2400 bps
modems.  I think planning a little bit ahead is in order, and 
furthermore, as a work around, just a link to such
a document can be included.

Furthermore, there are tools for converting HTML->XHTML.  Nicola Ken 
once suggested a few when I had
this argument (from the other side) with him (I used to author 
everything in StarOffice and output to HTML).
Migrating can be done rather efficiently and even in a piecemail 
fashion.  I find once a project decides to do XML
the adoptation takes care of itself as the efficiency gains are 
dramatic.  (Not having to worry about presentation at all!)

>forrest can be as fast or as slow as it takes.  is the primary goal
>do a little really fast, or do a lot in whatever time it takes?
Thats not particularly fair.  For the purpose of generating HTML 
documentation, forrest is unusually slow.
In Vegas, Stefano said this is because its using Cocoon and Cocoon is 
still creating pools and all sorts of app server stuff that
won't be used.

Someone else stated that doing multiple passes exasserbated it (forgot who).

So I'd say: to do as much as is necessary (and hopefully no more) to get 
the job done, in as much time as that takes provided thats
reasonable.  I do not believe Forrest meets this today.  


View raw message