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: [VOTE] New skinconf format
Date Tue, 27 Apr 2004 05:04:17 GMT
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi escribió:
>
>>>
>>> So what will be the output without all the skinconf elements?
>>
>> Good question, easy answer.
>>
>> The search box should search the whole web, the skinconf trail should 
>> not show, the header should not even appear, the colors are of the 
>> standard theme for the skin, etc...
> 
> Well, I do not feel that this is right, all the element should behave in 
>  the same way, so If we remove the search element, then it should not 
> appear on the site.

Correct, I was erroneously thinking of removing the search properties.

  <feature name="search" value="true"/>

This should show a generic search.

   [none]

  or

   <feature name="search" value="false"/>

should not show search.

>>> If the DTD will not change is because it does not validate for the 
>>> elements say:
>>>
>>> <feature name="search" value="true">
>>>      <property name="foo">xml.apache.org</property>
>>>      <property name="morefoo">Apache XML</property>
>>>   </feature>
>>>
>>> On a skin there is a expectation for 
>>> feature[@name='search']/property/attribute::name
>>>
>>> So it will not work and it will not display xml.apache.org
>>
>> Correct, it will not work, as the names of the parameters are wrong. I 
>> don't think it's too difficult to understand for the user: feature not 
>> working == params not correct.
> 
> But would not be better to detect this problem before?

The problem is that if a user does not enter a value, we can detect it 
only if we make it mandatory. If it's not mandatory, the user can also 
not put it in.

The only thing we will be losing is the ability to tell the user that 
some values are not correct, but in fact it's a feature, because that 
particualr skin may want such values!

> If the only 
> proposal is to check for xml well formess then turn it validation off is 
> enough.

Sorry I don't understand.

>> We would loose a benefit but gain others. IMHO the gains are much 
>> bigger, especially seeing how the current system has not worked too well.
> 
> could you expand on what actually has not worked too well?

Upgrading, both for us and for the users.

Usually when i add a value to skinconf I put it in the fresh-site and 
document it. But then it has happened more than once that we forgot to 
update the skinconf DTD or the relaxNG one, and Forrest was broken.

Worse yet, users have to manually fix their skinconf DTD each time, and 
there are many many mails from Adam from Gump that show plainly how he 
could not get Forrest to work well, even if there was a DTD in place.

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


Mime
View raw message