forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: xhtml2 tonights update & questions
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:31:34 GMT
On 9/8/05, Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org> wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
> > I'll read the rest of this later but really quickly I don't see how
> > moving the navi stuff out to a contract (which I agree with btw) is
> > going to solve my problem.  It's not going to change that the internal
> > plugin xmap has match precedence over the menu.xmap.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what the problem is here. Yo9u only refer to
> problems with *.html matches. However, I don't think I need to
> understand the problem because the internal plugin is intended to be a
> complete rewrite of core (see the start of the IRC logs from where
> Nickola logged in). In this plugin we will be replacing *all* matches in
> core.
> 
> i.e. add a ew menu.xmap to the plugin.

This "i.e." is key;)   It's taken me some time to realize the scope of
what we're trying to accomplish with this plugin.  As much talk as we
had around it - I don't know if everyone fully considered the scope of
what we are under-taking here.  Since the plugin and forrest tuesday
were titled "xhtml2 in the core" I never thought much about the extra
stuff (e.g. view refinement, etc.) -- even though, as you point out,
it was written down like that.

> > I've been thinking we were taking baby steps here.  I don't know that
> > I want to tackle both "xhtml2 to core" and "views refinement" at the
> > same time.
> 
> I don't think we can separate them efficiently, but I'm still reading...
> 
> >  My goal has just been to get the former done with current
> > views, then tackle views refinement armed with what was learned in the
> > first step.
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> >  I think it'll take going through the pain of the first
> > step in order for everyone to be able to speak intelligently about
> > views and what the implications of suggestioning certain conceptual
> > refinements might be technically.
> 
> There is some value in what you say here. However, I hate doing the same
> job twice and always like to avoid doing so.
> 
> In other words, if it is not going to increase the workload then I say
> go for it. I only raised the issue because your mail made me think that
> you perhaps hadn't understood what the TR meant and the direction we are
> heading as a project (you being fairly new around here and all that).

I think I grasped the TR.  I didn't grasp that the scope of the
current effort was implementing the entire TR.  I thought we were only
focused on the first part -- using XTHML2 as our source.  I just
didn't pick up on that earlier for some reason.

> > For example, in this process so far, I've been notetaking my own ideas
> > of how we might improve views but I don't want that to slow down the
> > xhtml2 to core progress -- as it will require lots of
> > non-code-but-thinking discussion.
> 
> By all means, proceed with your direction. We (the community) will
> continue to make you aware of where we think we need to go in the
> future. Your new eyes on the core code can only serve to add value to
> those ideas.

ok, i assume that someone will revert when I go astray;)

> My mails are meant to be informative/discussive, they do *not* contain
> instructions ;-)

Yeah, this part I understood;)  

--tim

Mime
View raw message