forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New skinconf format
Date Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:17:10 GMT
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi escribió:
>>> can we find another way to extend the skinconfig?
>> Tell me.
> "standard" forrest configuration is hold under skinconf.xml, other can 
> be on a diferent file, then a transformation mix them out and put them 
> under {project.webapp}/skinconf.xml
> This transformation could be on build time or run time.

Hmmm, yes we can also do it at runtime with the copyless stuff.
Hmmm... it separates standard and not-standard features... maybe we 
should really add a namespace to the elements...

>>> When you suggest to have a DTD that does not change, this implies 
>>> that the only thing that check is that the document is xml, so we are 
>>> better of turn it on validation off and remove the DTD reference from 
>>> the file.
>> It's not correct, as the DTD helps in editing the file with an editor 
>> that hints the tags.
> But because you want to make it more complex:
> If you said that on our skinconf each element is a feature, these two 
> elements are the same:
>   <feature name="logo">
>      <property name="name">Forrest"</property>
>      <property name="url"></property>
>      <property name="logo">images/project-logo.gif</property>
>   </feature>
> <logo name="forrest" url="" 
> logo="images/project-logo.gif" />
> If you want to group features then you have to:
> <feature name="credits" value="true">
>     <element>
>       <property name="name">Built with Cocoon</property
>       <property name="url"></property >
>       <property name="image">images/built-with-cocoon.gif</property >
>       <property name="width">88</property >
>       <property name="height">31</property >
>     </element>
> <feature/>
> That is the same as
> <credits>
>  <element name="Built with Cocoon" url="" 
> image="images/built-with-cocoon.gif" width="88" height="31"/>
> <credits>
> But with validation switch it off.
> Am I right?

Yes, with validation switched off they are equipollent, but weren't you 
in favor of validation?

Let's assume that we, as you suggest IIUC, turn off DTD validation... we 
would have the same format we have now, that is simpler to read, but 
without editor DTD help... basically what is now in the copyless branch, 

>> In any case, it's useless to go on like this when we both understand 
>> the points of the other. What I'm asking to vote for is a compromise 
>> between fixed values and a more lax system. The other votes I've seen 
>> are +1, what is yours?
> I am on -0

Ok, so here is my proposal: we remove the DTD declaration from the file 
so that it's not DTD-validated, but retain the current format. This will 
give us the possibility of testing the non-validation without changing 
too much. In advance we shall add a namespace declaration to the tags, 
so that users can easily see which tags are standard and which are not.

So, if things start getting bad we can put the DTD or RelaxNG back in 
place with no trouble, if all goes well but users want a DTD for editors 
we change the format, and if all goes well we keep it without validation.


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

View raw message