forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clay Leeds <>
Subject Re: [HEADS-UP] doc reorg
Date Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:33:40 GMT
On Nov 9, 2004, at 9:12 PM, Dave Brondsema wrote:
> All documents are now split between site-author and docs-author.
> *Please* feel free to adjust what I have done.
> I haven't done anything in regards to publishing.  These have been 
> source-only changes.  If someone else wants to take this next step, 
> that's great; else I'll probably be able to get to it in a couple 
> days.

While we're in the mood for [HEADS-UP] msgs and moving docs around, 
does it make sense to pre-pend Forrest-specific docs with "Forrest_*" 
or "for_*"? I recently had an issue on fop-dev (here's the thread[1]) 
where a naming conflict caused by Forrest's choice of generic filenames 
caused a problem (of course, the chicken or the egg argument could say 
xml-fop shouldn't have a file name identical to an established Forrest 
file name).

In any case I recall a problem in the past where site.html & site.pdf 
were renamed to wholesite.html & wholesite.pdf for similar reasons.

Does it make sense to rename the following files:
- book.xml => FORREST_book.xml (somewhat moot since it's deprecated)
- site.xml => Forrest_site.xml
- tabs.xml => forrest_tabs.xml
(upper/lower case presented above highlight sort order possibilities)

Among other benefits, all of the files would 'sort' together, making 
them easier to spot (currently they get 'lost' if there are lots of 
files in the s*.xml range. This is relatively low priority, but if a 
change were to be made, the sooner the better.

[1] fop-dev - book.xml filename issue

Web Maestro Clay
Clay Leeds - <>
Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - <>
PGP Public Key: <>

View raw message