forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r279511 - /forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.xhtml2/resources/stylesheets/xhtml2_to_html.xsl
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:53:42 GMT
Tim Williams wrote:
> I've reverted my changes as requested.

I never requested that :-((

I was trying to understand why this change was necessary.

>  I'll lay low until I see where
> you're going with this.  Perhaps I don't understand views as well as I
> thought, but I don't see that the output side of them works on xdoc,
> but rather the resultant html of document2html.

Did I say that output was XDoc? I didn't mean to, what I meant was the 
outpur of document2html is not XHTML2 (its not even html), therefore if 
we continue to work with that format we are not using XHTML2 in our 

> Either way, I'm deleting my local changes and svn up occasionally to
> see where you're going.

No, please don't do that. I never said this change should be reverted, I 
asked why it was necessary.

I have vision in my own mind as to where this is going, but that doesn't 
mean it is right. Both you and Thorsten are expressing similar concerns, 
but I don't understand them. I'm trying to understand.

This commit, in isolation, makes no sense whatsoever. However, I am 
aware it is part of a larger set of changes you made locally. I need to 
understand what your approach is and if it is in line with Thorstens, 
because if it is then it is likely that my approach is wrong.


> --tim
> On 9/9/05, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
>>Tim Williams wrote:
>>>On 9/9/05, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Author: twilliams
>>>>>Date: Wed Sep  7 21:40:42 2005
>>>>>New Revision: 279511
>>>>>can't return all the html, head, stuff for insertion in the pipeline.
 temporary solution to get on with pipeline testing
>>>>Why do you want the output to look like document2html output and then be
>>>>passed into the existing pipelines?
>>>Because that's how views work right now.  I didn't have this grand
>>>redesign scheme in my mind at the time.  I thought we were getting
>>>XHTML2 to work with the current views and replacing the **body-*.html
>>>aggregation "part" in the **page pipeline with an xthml2tohtml
>>>equivalent was how I did it.
>>Views as they are now, work with XDoc. The goal is to make core work
>>with XHTML2 not XDoc. It is not possible to include views in this work
>>*and* not do a level of redesign in views (or the old skin system).
>>>>Don't we just want XHTML2 -> output plugin = desired output
>>>That's what it is, but views operate on html structured like the
>>>output of document2html.  I wasn't redesigning views, just getting
>>>xhtml2 to work with them.
>>So here you are saying the same as Thorsten.
>>>>Meaning we only need an XHTML2_to_HTML stylesheet>
>>>>(I recall a conversation Tim and I had on IRC in which he asked me why
>>>>we need the XHTML2HTML stylesheet. I seem to remember the answer I gave
>>>>was misleading to say the least. Hopefully recent discussions about the
>>>>new pipeline will have clarified - if not I'll try agian when I
>>>>understand the intent of this commit, I may be missing something)
>>>I could very well be missing something but like I tried to explain in
>>>the other thread, to get xhtml2 to work with views (or the current
>>>skins for that matter) we need two things:
>>>1) a xslt that outputs html with the same structure of document2html
>>>2) a change in the **page pipeline to call that instead of **body-*.html
>>Well this is where the "division" needs to be called. In my view it is a
>>waste of effort refactoring the current skinning system to use XHTML2
>>and then converting views to get rid of the body-** templates.
>>In my opinion we should skip the conversion of skins and work directly
>>on views.
>>If you revert this commit and do svn up, you will see that the body-*
>>part of the pipeline is working. All we need to do now is get views to
>>work with site.xml source files to create the navigation (this is, a
>>small step).
>>[NOTE] this work happens in the contracts *not* in the structurer
>>sitemap so it does not prevent work proceeding with the refactoring of
>>>Even when we do what you suggest and use contracts for everything
>>>instead of aggregation, the implementation of that contract will still
>>>need something similar to this.
>>Why? I don't think this is the case (see my summary mails on return from
>>  Apachecon and Thorsten expansion of that summary)

View raw message