forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [copyless] Issues with //skinconf
Date Mon, 03 May 2004 06:44:51 GMT
Rick Tessner wrote:
> Hi all,
> There's a bit of an issue with the change to //skinconf (other than the
> PDF one).
> Using aggregation is a great idea for the skin configuration. 
> Unfortunately, where it's being done means that some of the
> configuration bits are not available when desired.
> In particular, any requests for configuration information done by
> document2html.xsl will not result in any information being returned. 
> This includes, by default, the configuration information for
>       * disable-print-link
>       * disable-pdf-link
>       * disable-xml-link
>       * toc/@location
>       * disable-external-link-image
>       * obfuscate-mail-links
> This is because the aggregation of the skinconf happens at the pipeline
> matching "*.html".  This pipeline aggregates skinconf.xml, tab-*, menu-*
> and body-*.

Good catch!

> The items above (disable-*-link, etc) are handled in the pipeline for
> body-* by the document2html.xsl transformation sheet.  That pipeline
> does NOT have access to the skinconf at this point.  It would if the
> aggregation was done in the "body-*" pipeline.

Right, excellent ananysis.

> There are a couple of ways of solving this:
>      1. Move the aggregation to the body-* pipeline.  The "*.html" will
>         then also have access to the skinconf.  However, if this is
>         done, it should probably be done for the tab-* and menu-*
>         pipelines as well.  Currently, it doesn't look like these last
>         two pipelines make use of anything in the skinconf, but that may
>         not always be the case.  Not too fond of this one.
>      2. Move the skinning bits out of document2html and handle it all
>         within the "skinit" resource.  This may require putting place
>         holder tags in the html generated by document2html that "skinit"
>         can then replace with proper skinconf values.  I like this
>         option better than #1.

This is a good suggestion.

We have sort-of seen how having different xsls for the page parts is 
usually more an issue than a feature, so it may be that we will move to 
a single xsl file, and keep the current decomposition using imports in 
the xsls.

>      3. Go back to using document().  Don't like this option either.
> Thoughts?  Any other options?  More explanation required?  

This is the clearest and most detailed bug report I've seen in months :-)

> BTW, I'm
> seeing this on the copyless branch.

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

View raw message