forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Fixing menus
Date Wed, 09 Apr 2003 04:57:02 GMT
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:05:46PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
> >               site.xml                               Fancy DHTML menu
> >User   -->  navigation.xml     --->  menu.xml   --->  <ul> + CSS menu
> >               book.xml                               Simple <table> menu
> >
> >
> >menu.xml isn't publicly visible, and can be verbose and even redundant as
> >necessary.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> 
> Two questions.
> 
> Since xdoc11 is used by our users, I reckon that menu.xml /could/ be as 
> well used, by following the analogy. Putting it backwards... why not do:
> 
>                 site.xml
>  User   -->  navigation.xml     --->  navigation.xml   --->  HTML
>                 book.xml
> ?

Yes, could do that, but then we've got a single contract with users *and*
skinwriters.  Seems cleaner to have them separate, even if the
navigation.xml and menu.xml formats are identical to start with.  The
navigation2menu.xsl stylesheet would just do a no-op.

> Second question (which invalidates the first ;-P)... how does it 
> integrate with the rest of the descriptors?
> 
> I feel a bit confused by having site, book, navigation... how would a 
> user use them?

Currently, book.xml is our 'source' format and our 'intermediate' format.
site.xml is an alternative source format.  If we have a menu.xml
intermediate format, then everything else (site.xml, navigation.xml,
book.xml) is a source format.

> My best initial guess:
> 
>                (skinconf.xml)
>  User   -->     site.xml       --->  navigation.xml   --->  HTML
>                 book.xml
> 
> Skinconf.xml is also keeping metadata about the site, that could as well 
> be in site.xml. Not that I'm very keen on moving it there, given all the 
> code that has to be changed, but just taking note of it to see what you 
> think.

I thought skinconf was logically an extension of the Gump project
descriptor?  The other formats (site.xml, book.xml, navigation.xml) are
strictly for menus, separate from project data.  Just like in Maven,
navigation.xml is separate from the POM.

--Jeff

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

Mime
View raw message