forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: SmartSlides Input PlugIn (aka SlidyPlugin)
Date Sat, 12 Nov 2005 20:16:52 GMT
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>>I've responded there. Can I ask you also read the archives about why we
>>insist on going through an internal format.
> I actually have been following these discussion in the past and I
> still agree with you
> - as long as we are talking about publishing content in
>   standard Forrest output channels

Well that is what Forrest does, so no argument there.

(I snipped the brakcet about slidy as there is a whole other thread 
about that now and will address it there)

> - as long as we talk about XHTML2 as our meta format because xdocs is
>   way to limited to transport all the information that specialized
>   grammars provide.

We have *always* talked of this. Note that a long time ago we agreed 
that anything in the XHTML2 subset we have agreed on can be put in to 
document 2.0 as and when requried without the need for a vote.

So again, no argument for me.

>>This comes up every six
>>months or so.
>>I distinctly remember a very similar discussion with Sean
>>Wellar (or Whellar, or some similar spelling, sorry Sean), this was in
>>relation to bypassing XDoc for docbook inputs.
> It's Sean Wheller actually. And now that I see his name again I
> recognize him as the maker of my favorite XML-Editor (Oxygen) if it is
> the same person.
> Anyway. It seems like you have two to argue about this now :-)

Actually, what you argue in the other thread is completely different 
from what others (including Sean) have argued in the passed. What has 
become clear in the other thread is that you are talking about bypassing 
the internal format when you don't want to use Forrest's skinning. That 
is a completely different issue and I will address it in your thread 
"Bypass plugins".

>>>That said, to make this work you'd have to start by
>>>- allowing div and span elements in the doc13 grammar (which would be good for
a number
>>>  of other applications as well)
>>div and span are both in our XHTML2 subset so not problem there. 
>>Similarly views use them extensively.
> Well I'm talking about div and span being used in Xdocs. Which atm is
> not legal in it's grammar.

It is in our agreed XHTML2 subset, tehrefore you can add it to Document 
v2.0 if you need it.

>>>- continue by preventing our current pipelines from 'loosing' or
>>>  overwriting class and id attributes from a number of elements (some
>>>  of them - such as body - involving rather complex changes).
>>We have already established that is a bug, so no problem there.
> Except that I consider it a waste of resources to do this for
> soon-to-be-phased-out xdocs.

So spend the respources on getting XHTML2 implemented then ;-)

>>>Some of which to looked like a nightmare in terms of doing it,
>>>documenting it and preserving backward compatibility etc. And
>>>Especially since a clean implementation of XHTML2 would remove most of
>>>these obstacles anyway.
>>Another push for XHMTL2 then, good.
> OK, so what is the solution for that plugin now?

Do you mean the XHTML2 plugin? If so the answer is that the views folk 
felt the approach was wrong. We are now waiting for views 2 before we 
can proceed.


View raw message