forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <>
Subject Re: Claiming *.html (Re: cvs commit: xml-forrest/src/resources/conf forrest.xmap)
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:01:26 GMT
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 10:32:53AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> >The extension provides a nice simple filetype marker.  As an analogy, 
> >modern filesystems don't *rely* on extensions for identifying file type, 
> >but people use them anyway, as a visual type indicator.
> Well then that's not what I had understood. I reread the thread and I 
> still don't see this.
> You wrote:
> "
> Perhaps we could rather use marker attributes in site.xml to indicate raw
> content:
> <site>
>   ...
>   <salesreport href="sales.pdf" binary="true"/>
>   ...
> </site>
> And then just have:
> src/documentation/content/index.xml
> src/documentation/content/sales.pdf
> "
> I don't see how this is a proposal about matching extensions to 
> processing rules.

It wasn't.  The desirability of being able to easily distinguish
processed and unprocessed files is an afterthought.

> >>>I don't want to limit our options in 0.6 for the minimal advantage of
> >>>making *.ihtml easier to edit.  So claim *.html if you want, but be 
> >>>aware
> >>>that it may be redefined in 0.6.
> >>
> >>I thought that we had agreed on this, Jeff, and I thought that this 
> >>commit was in line with what we had decided.
> >>
> >>IE:
> >> - Add .html matcher as new way of defining ihtml pages
> >> - Make namespaced content pass the pipeline (so we can add xhtml things
> >>   to xdoc pages for special cases, as like ehtml)
> >> - deprecate ihtml and ehtml
> >
> >I'm not sure how processing *.html as ihtml counts as a first step down 
> >this road of supporting mixed-namespace documents.  For a start, '.html' 
> >is the wrong extension, as it's XML, not HTML.  
> Nope. It's html.

I'm referring to the "namespaced content", as in multiple-namespaces.xml.

> >Wouldn't it be better to 
> >graft HTML support onto doc-v12 instead of docv12 onto HTML?
> I think you don't get it. Html is just another *source* format that gets 
> transformed in xdoc. It will *not* output extra facilities that doc-v12 
> doesn't have.

True, I don't get it.  Translating presentational HTML into semantic
docv12 seems completely backwards to me. and utterly useless if you
intend to strip out useful HTML features like forms.  It wouldn't matter
that I don't understand or use ihtml, but that you're forcing the issue
by claiming *.html.

> But I really thought we had finally gotten to a decision on this :-/

The last thread on this topic got waylaid by an <asis> tag.  The core
question (why ihtml) was never addressed.


> -- 
> Nicola Ken Barozzi         
>             - verba volant, scripta manent -
>    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

View raw message