forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@indexgeo.com.au>
Subject Re: newbie question -- book.xml versus site.xml
Date Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:41:18 GMT
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   assuming that this is the appropriate place for newbie questions,

Yes.

> i'm developing my first web site with forrest and i'll probably have
> the occasional question as i figure this out.

Please ask here, and if you see any clarifications needed to the docs
then please say so.

>   first question -- as i read it, if there is a site.xml file, it
> will be used.  if there is no such file, book.xml is used instead.

That is correct. I presume that you have done 'forrest seed' to start
a new project and have followed the "Using Forrest" and the "Menus and
Linking" documents.

Ah yes, now i see why you may be confused - the former document still
only talks about book.xml and does not mention site.xml ... we had
better put that on the "to do" list.

>   while i prefer the more obvious layout of book.xml, i like the
> "site:" feature that's available with a site.xml file.  i'd like
> to create a hierarchical structure of .xml files, and have some of
> them refer back to the top-level, so the "site:" qualifier would
> be handy.
> 
>   if i choose book.xml, is there an analogous way to do this?
> or should i just explicitly use "../" parent references?

That is correct.

>   and which is the preferred file that most people are using?

Personally, i prefer the site.xml

--David



Mime
View raw message