forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <>
Subject Re: Post processing using views
Date Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:29:43 GMT

I send to early and lost the instructions how to do it. :( 

...but I will try again.

In the contract "content-main" you can apply this rewriting rules. e.g.
you can try:

<xsl:template match="a[class='glossary']" > rewriting

The only problem IMO is that you may interfere with the other overall
processing. Just try the above and see how it works.

Please report back. ;-)


On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 11:20 +0200, Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 18:06 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > I have a skin that I use for adding links to a glossary page. In my 
> > xdocs I have links like this:
> > 
> > <a href="electronicBusiness" class="glossary">E-Business</a>
> > 
> > The skin uses the class="glossary" attribute to flag glossary links and 
> > this is converted to something like:
> > 
> > <a href="/glossary.html#electronicBusiness">E-Business</a>
> > 
> That is done right now in document2html.xsl, right?
> > This works just fine, but now I want to use the same kind of 
> > functionality in a views based site. So I have a couple of questions.
> > 
> > 1) Is there a way to extend the the "skin" to do the necessary link 
> > rewriting? I know I can do it be extending the leather-dev skin, but is 
> > there a better way now we have views? This leads me to the next question:
> > 
> Ok, the thing is we are still using the document2html.xsl from
> leather-dev. That means this link rewriting is normally done in an
> earlier processing step then where views come in to play. 
> We need to discuss how we can place the views earlier in the processing.
> > 2) can an input plugin add the necessary view extensions? That is, since 
> > I have now put the DTD and stylesheets for glossary.html into a plugin I 
> > would like the rewrite rules to be provided by the plugin as well, 
> > rather than the "skin"
> > 
> To the second question, I agree that best practice would be that the
> plugin would offer the necessary view extensions. IMO that means that a
> plugin that is offering a contract implementation would need to
> "register" in the viewHelper plugin. I am still unsure what the best way
> will be. 

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)

View raw message