Should I file a JIRA on this (RFE)?

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Hi Arik,

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 19:55 +0200, Arik Kfir wrote:
I've noticed that the skinconf.xml contains all the skin colors.
Generally, that is the place they belong, but I see some problems with

<snip something we agree on/>

What I would suggest is to introduce an additional (optional) file
called "skin-colors.xml" which will contain the site's color
definitions. It should be optional of course. 


Yeah that would make sense. 

What's more, with this configuration, we will be able to provide
several files - each containing the "skin-colors.xml" file to use (the can have a property that points to it, with a
sensible default) so I can have several color configurations and
simply "pick out" the one I want by changing a property in

What do you think?


I reckon I would not store it in the because the idea
is to be able to change this color settings with a cforms tool (or
something similar) in webapp mode. That brings us a step forward in the
direction of a skinbot. ;-)

I reckon it should be stored in the view (the link).

Generally speaking I am +1 to split skinconf.xml apart. 

Since this changes will be post 0.7, anyway, maybe we should generally
discuss what belongs in skinconf.xml and what in e.g. contractconf.xml


Thorsten Scherler wrote: 

here is a proposal for a new skinconf format.

This is based on the recent user discussion (skinconf text elements in
group.svg) which showed again that our skinconf needs to be more
extensible without touching the dtd. 

<forrest:property contract="copyright">
  <!-- The following are used to construct a copyright statement -->
  <vendor>The Apache Software Foundation.</vendor>

The idea is to allow all xml within a forrest:property.