Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4321485C.3020201@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:31:24 +0100
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: forrest:views and xhtml2
References: <1126224563.4983.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <49988844050908181710e02d5f@mail.gmail.com>  <4321402D.7010403@apache.org>
 <1126253941.7758.19.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1126253941.7758.19.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
>>Tim Williams wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <thorsten@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
>>>
>>>
>>>This seems like an odd question.  
>>
>>Hmmm... yes, it is..
>>
>>
>>>Because views are an integral part
>>>of the TR?   The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
>>>new internal structure, refined views, integral locationmap usage, and
>>>streamlined sitemap.
>>
>>My take is similar.
>>
>>Views are to go into core as soon as they are mature enough.
>>
> 
> 
> If they are not mature enough, why are they going then into this plugin?
> What are missing to make them mature enough?

I didn't say they were not mature enough *you* did. I proposed moving 
them into core immediately after the 0.7 release. I proposed it again 
about a week ago.

>>XHTML2 work requires a rewrite of a large proposrtion of core.
>>
> 
> 
> agree, but should we not just focus on the document part first?

The document part is done, now for the next stage.

>>Skins are to be deprecated when views go into core.
>>
> 
> 
> Should we not state this officially first?

I suppose we have never called a vote on this buyt I think it is pretty 
clear to anyone who reads the dev list.

>>Doing the XHTML2 work in skins would be wasted effort.
>>
> 
> 
> Agree partly, you and me having the same thought of getting away from
> tab, menu, doc and site processing, but are we *all* agree on that? 

I think so, all the discussions about forrest:views have been about 
doing this and the TR states it.

However, we never had a vote, so it is not *the* way of doing it yet.

>>Therefore we use views.
>>
> 
> 
> Actually I have problems to follow this logic, see the question above.

I find it ironic that you now want to talk about things rather than just 
get on with them. I believe this is the right approach, on Forrest 
Tuesday I did a load of work towards this approach (thanks to the 
groundwork put in place by others earlier in the day).

The work may not be accepted into core once it is complete, but the code 
before talk approach it is exactly what you called for in 
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=112574531715651&w=2

For example:

"It seems we prefer to have endless discussion and well meant
recommendation that do not contain any specific examples (e.g. code
discussion). If you want to change something give an example that is
working and we can discuss this. "

Honestly Thorsten, sometimes I find it impossible to please you. This 
may not have been the approach you would have taken, but you were not 
present and so unable to contribute your thoughts.

Also from your mail above:

"If somebody took the time to come up with a solution/recommendation you
should better spend your time to enhance that instead of recommend
something different (e.g. with another focus)."

And a final quote from your mail above:

"It seems we prefer to have endless discussion and well meant
recommendation that do not contain any specific examples (e.g. code
discussion). If you want to change something give an example that is
working and we can discuss this."

So lets have specific reasons why this is not the right approach so that 
we can get on with improving what we have.

Ross

Ross

Ross