forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <>
Subject Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm, news and other descriptors])
Date Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:58:58 GMT
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:33:15PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> ...
> >Hence I would propose that we adopt Gump's format with extra namespaced 
> >elements for things we need, and also support the Maven format.
> >
> >This is the same concept of what I proposed before of also supporting 
> >the xml Maven format and navigation.xml.
> >
> >One thing is supporting, another is adopting as "standard".
> What I mean here as "standard" is not the "endorsed" format, but a more 
> general format to which all descriptors can be converted. Once we are 
> able to render that descriptor format, we just need to convert others to 
> that. The Gump and Maven formats have both differences, but the Gump 
> format is more generic, and can be augmented with extra namespaced tags 
> without breaking, so I regard it as the only possible one for a common 
> format. We could define ours, dunno if it's that necessary though (could 
> be).

I'm not sure on all these common formats.  When there's only one or two
_source_ formats (here, Maven and Gump), isn't is easier just to write
two stylesheets than to try to come up with an XML format that is
superset of both?

I guess the choice is up to the person who does the work ;)

> Anyway, again I'm seeing that we go in a lot of talking and once we are 
> finished I feel that my itches don't itch anymore.
> So I propose that I implement my proposal taking into account initial 
> reactions, and then we can all judge from that how to make it better.
> Deal?



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

View raw message