forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Fixing menus
Date Wed, 09 Apr 2003 08:45:26 GMT

Jeff Turner wrote, On 09/04/2003 6.57:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:05:46PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> ...

>>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.

Ok, agreed. Similar to what we have done with book.xml, but this time 
it's declared as being different right from the start and can evolve as 
we need without problems.

+1

>>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.

I understand that book.xml will be kept for dir-specific navs, but 
what's the difference between navigation.xml and site.xml? How would 
users use the two? Can't we scrape site.xml in favor of navigation.xml? 
Are they mutually exclusive?

Also, why not make book.xml in each dir an *additional* source of links, 
by adding them to the navigation instead of replacing? With CSS then 
skinwriters can decide to exclude what they prefer.

>>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?  

Hmmm... does it describe the project? IMHO no, and that's why I talk 
about putting in site.xml, that is where users would maybe look how to 
config the site... just ramblings, leave it, I have no real intention of 
changing it, and overmore I don't have clear alternatives myself.

> 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.

Yes, if the above stands, the concept is correct.

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


Mime
View raw message