forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Portier <...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: site.xml tabs.xml part of content??
Date Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:12:07 GMT
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
>>
>> Is a site menu classified as content, or metadata?
> 
> 
> If you take this definition http://www.w3.org/Metadata/ then menu is not 
> metadata.
> 
> but all the content for  Logo names, copyright, 'breadcrumb trail' links 
> and Credits goes under src/document/skin.conf
> 
> So why menu and tabs are diferent?
> 
>>
>> Has the dog buddha-nature or not?
>>
> 
> Well, some animals do:
> http://www.theridion.com/images/logo-gnu.png
> 

LOL

>> Since it appears in the HTML output, is i18n'izable, etc, I'd say it is
>> content.  Perhaps meta-content.  This view is strengthened the the fact
>> that really, we ought to be deriving most of site.xml directly from the
>> XML files themselves.
> 
> 
> I like the idea of delivering most of the elements directly from the xml 
> files, in fact, I saw this problem when I was playing with the 
> DirectoryGenerator, if you use it for the whole site, you need to 
> exclude book.xml, site.xml, tabs.xml files.
> 
> 

slighlty off topic, but your reference to the DirectoryGenerator 
makes me think about two things

1/ isn't there still this unclear dream of generating the 
site.xml, so maybe the question is not 'where should it be', but 
more fundamentally 'could it just not be' ;-)

2/ looking into the discussions on the recent 
'TraversableSourceGenerator' in cocoon-land... that might be 
prepping up to be a more logical way of working then good ol' libre ?

(missing the time ATM to look into it though)

>>
>> More practically, I like site.xml in the content because then all the
>> hrefs are correct.  In my editor I can type 'gf' ("goto file") to quickly
>> traverse the href.
> 
> 
> I agree it is useful, but I am think it creates more confusion for 
> users. It is common to have just only one config directory instead of two.
> 

I would rate the use case of Jeff slightly higher...

on the aspect of 'only one config directory' I think forrest has 
always been doing a good job (and should continue doing so) to 
define a single entry point that leads you through the path from 
there on

forrest seed --> message saying what to do next --> site 
explaining itself what to find/change where --> ...

I find this more useful then the pursuit of single config 
directory (but have to admit it would help also :-))

other thoughts?

-marc=
-- 
Marc Portier                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at              http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/
mpo@outerthought.org                              mpo@apache.org


Mime
View raw message