forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Raw and process content directories
Date Wed, 18 May 2005 14:55:54 GMT
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> Maybe this has gotten lost in all the mail delays. Can anybody pls
> comment so that I can close FOR-470.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ferdinand Soethe
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> > Just to make sure I have this right before I rewrite any more
> > documentation:
> 
> > In /docs/upgrading_07.html#raw I found:
> 
> >> In 0.6 version, the raw content was placed in the
> >> src/documentation/content/ directory and potential sub-directories.
> >> In the generated site, these links would automatically function. Any
> >> linked file with .html extension was not processed and not adorned
> >> with Forrest skin and navigation menus.
> 
> >> In 0.7 version, any file that is linked to, needs to be placed in
> >> the content/xdocs/ directory structure. Any linked file with .html
> >> extension is now processed and is adorned with Forrest skin and
> >> navigation menus.
> 
> >> If you need to include files that are not linked to, then place them
> >> in the src/documentation/content/ directories as with the 0.6
> >> version.
> 
> > So does
> 
> >  "any file that is linked to, needs to be placed in
> >   the content/xdocs/"
> 
> > really mean that I will get an error if I place
> > a file that is linked to in the content-directory.

Try it.

> > Or does it mean "can now be placed in either xdocs or content
> > directory at my disgression" depending on wether I want processing to
> > happen or not.
>
> >> If you need to link to html files but want them to be un-processed,
> >> then place them in the src/documentation/content/ directories and
> >> add an entry to conf/cli.xconf to exclude them from processing. An
> >> FAQ describes the use of Cocoon's cli.xconf
> 
> > This last para seems to confirm the first version because otherwise I
> > could just place the file into content rather than writing an
> > exclusion rule.
> 
> > Thanks for making that clear.

What FOR-470 is really about is needing someone to revise
the self-documenting samples in the "seed" site. That would
soon find out which methods work. Then clarify the upgrading_07
doc.

Sorry, if i am going to try and explain it then i would rather
go and do the job myself, because, like you i do not fully
understand the ramifications of changing the behaviour from
0.6 version. The only way is to go and fix the seed site.

--David

Mime
View raw message