forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Claiming *.html (Re: cvs commit: xml-forrest/src/resources/conf forrest.xmap)
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:45:50 GMT
Jeff Turner wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:44:35PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>Jeff Turner wrote:
> ...
>>>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 know which is better.  

Honestly, I don't know either, and both work for me.

> I just didn't want to potentially exclude
> one possibility.


> ...
>>>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.
> Okay, I'm fine with that.  Perhaps we should think about the
> XHTML2-as-intermediate-format proposal some more?  Wouldn't XHTML2
> provide a more natural foundation for a semantic-HTML source format than
> xdoc?

Probably yes. But this AFAIS does not preclude what I propose, it would 
simply be a further evolutionary step.

>>>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 don't yet understand how we can auto-detect arbitrary content types
> (esp. without namespaces or xsi:schemaType attrs), so I tend to be
> conservative when it comes to turfing out extensions.

All xml should have namespaces and schema definitions if we want to out 
arbitrary content. With other sources, we would stick with one 
processing mode.

>>Jeff, as I have already proposed, and now I ask you, please revert my 
>>commits as I feel they were not appropriate.
> Thanks for doing so.

It was simply the right thing to do.

>>I would do so myself but cannot ATM. And again sorry if you felt
>>pushed, but I really am in good faith.
> You take rants far too personally ;)

Probably ;-)

But in fact it's not your rant (actually, did you rant at all?) but me 
being a bit worried of having done another communication mess.

Oh well...

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

View raw message