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: Claiming *.html (Re: cvs commit: xml-forrest/src/resources/conf forrest.xmap)
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:44:35 GMT
Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 10:32:53AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
>>Jeff Turner wrote:
...
>>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.

Ok, now I get it.

Well, that's the reason why the previous proposal was about using two 
directory trees, I'm still ok with that if you prefer.

>>>>>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.

That is still *.xml as now.
Then .html refers only to real html files.

>>>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.

HTML is not presentational. Part of it is, part isn't. docv12 was born 
from html, and ebooks are based on semantical html.

> and utterly useless if you
> intend to strip out useful HTML features like forms.  

In this regard, cwiki is useless too. It's just another source format. 
If you won't use it, fine.

> It wouldn't matter
> that I don't understand or use ihtml, but that you're forcing the issue
> by claiming *.html.

I'm not claiming anything, Jeff, as I don't think that the extension 
should tell Cocoon how to process the file anymore. This is exactly what 
ithml and ehtml do.

I concede that I proposed it some time back as a compromise, but now I'd 
like to go forward and make things better. Hence my initial asis 
proposal, that became mixed-namespace stuff, and the proper separation 
of directories.

> ...
> 
>>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.

I thought it was, also by other threads about source directories and such.

Jeff, as I have already proposed, and now I ask you, please revert my 
commits as I feel they were not appropriate. I would do so myself but 
cannot ATM. And again sorry if you felt pushed, but I really am in good 
faith.

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



Mime
View raw message