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: <432CAC9B.3070307@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:54:03 +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: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
References: <43240855.1060001@apache.org>
 <20050914023747.GA7113@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
 <1126682277.5090.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <20050914081741.GA8966@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
 <1126689168.7532.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <4327F88C.3040603@apache.org> <4998884405091405043a86e26e@mail.gmail.com>
 <1126724786.17374.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <20050917013904.GC25972@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
 <4998884405091619037289a88c@mail.gmail.com>
 <20050917232509.GA27888@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20050917232509.GA27888@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Crossley wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
> 
>>David Crossley wrote:
>>
>>>The original topic was how to implement
>>>views/xhtml2/internals. I reckon that they
>>>are all entwined. 
>>
>>I've said it before and I'll say it again, they aren't necessarily,
>>and I mean *technically*, entwined.  I've tried, and apparently
>>failed, in several emails to describe in technical terms why they are
>>not entwined, but it's essentially for how Thorsten says, "views *are*
>>*just* replacing site2xhtml.xsl of leather-dev".  If we view the
>>resultant html of document2html as an Interface (in oo terms), then
>>that's what views are programmed to and that's why they aren't
>>entwined.
> 
> 
> Thanks to that paragraph i now understand heaps more
> about views. I was seeing views as covering many,
> if not all, of the steps in xdocs/TR/2005/WD-forrest10.html 
> Glad it is more confined. That means we can do things
> in stages.

Hmmmm... I'll resist discussing now other than to say it would be well 
worth while reading my discussion of *which* stages of the TR views 
cover and compare that to the current implementation. I think we need to 
discuss my what I said in my email in some detail, if I have that wrong 
then there is no real argument about how to implmeent XHTML2 in core.

>>If we want to entwine them as a dev-decision, then that is obviously a
>>different story.  I just want to be clear that technically, it is not
>>[in the current views implementation] entwined.  I sincerely hope that
>>Thorsten will correct me if I've mis-spoke here.
> 
> 
> I am trying to ensure that if views do have any
> requirements regarding xhtml2, then these are
> defined as early as possible. If there are not,
> then great, it makes the job simpler.
> 
> Would someone please attempt to define
> what we will discuss tomorrow.

My para above indicates one thing I think is important for discussion.

Here is what I wanted to start the session with:

"What are we trying to achieve by using XHMTL2 in the core?"

I suspect I will then follow up with the question below, whether I do or 
not depends on the answers to the first question:

"What do we achieve by doing a partial implementation of XHTML2 in core?"

The reason for starting with these questions is that *can* does not mean 
*should* and I hope that the answers to these questions will help us 
understand whether we *should* do this in stages.

I guess that boils down to a question of what we gain/lose by doing it 
in stages within our increasingly restrictive architecture or as a 
rewrite of that architecture for an upcoming 1.0 release.

I'll repeat my opening question now, so people can think about it before 
  the IRC session:

What are we trying to achieve by using XHTML2 in the core?

Ross