You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au> on 2002/10/29 08:25:53 UTC
sync various descriptions of Forrest
I have noticed that Forrest is described inconsistently
in various documents. So i have gathered together the
descriptions to start refinement. I think that we need a
longish description (refine what we have at A) and
also develop a one-liner.
The long description also needs to be more clear that
the intent is broader than Apache.
We are going to need to make an official release of Forrest
soon (not that i am taking on a release manager's job).
A good clear description will be needed for that.
Perhaps we should start again and get down some dot-points,
then develop a description from them:
* Based on robust Apache software, practices and experience
* Can be applied to any ASF project
* Can be applied to your own private project
* based on XML/XSLT
* many modes of operation (shbat, forrestbot, webapp - but
not using those techy terms)
* management of local and remote website production
* ... please add more ...
We also need to fine-tune the three main documents that
describe Forrest (A, B, D). Forrest has progressed a lot
and they need all review. I am happy to help out a bit.
I see that Forrest promises more than it is currently
delivering, e.g. says that is for management of projects,
provides statistics and metrics, makes comparison with
Sourceforge etc. I think that this is dangerous and
some of these should be moved to dreams.xml
Anyway here is what we have now ...
--------------------------------------------------
A) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/index.xml
B) xml-forrest/index.html
C) xml-forrest/module.xml
(The docs A, B, and C have basically the same intro.)
------
Forrest provides a robust technological infrastructure for
open software development for the Apache Software Foundation
based on ASF software, ASF practices and experience, and
modern software design principles.
--------------------------------------------------
D) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/primer.xml
(This is the first sentence of the "What is Forrest" section.
It goes on to describe with more detail and some of those
words will be useful for a top-level description.)
------
Forrest is a framework that supports the cross-project
generation and management of development project websites
using Cocoon as its XML publishing framework.
--------------------------------------------------
Other issues
------------
1) Try view-source of B) xml-forrest/index.html
I was horrified by the HTML source there. We need to
make it clear that this mess was not built by Forrest,
then proceed to clean it up.
2) Should we be referring to "ASF" or "Apache"?
3) Do we need to mention the actual technologies (such
as Cocoon) in a top-level description?
--David
Re: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > <snip/>
> > >
> > > Here is the current draft:
> > > "Forrest is an XML standards-oriented project documentation
> > > framework based on Apache Cocoon, providing XSLT stylesheets
> > > and schema, images and other resources. Forrest uses these to
> > > render the XML source content into a website via command-line,
> > > robot, or a dynamic web application. Start with a small static
> > > site and grow to a dynamic application."
> > >
> > > Issues:
> > > 1) Is it getting too long?
>
> Maybe we should drop the last line.. it really needs a separate
> paragraph.
Yes, i wondered about that too. I agree, i will add that into the
second paragraph.
> > > 2) "schema" is a singular word, "schemata" is the proper plural,
> > > but it sounds like a disease or a religious affliction. Is there
> > > a better term? I am trying to avoid specific terms like DTD,
> > > WXS, or XML Schema (when they mean W3C XML Schema). One other
> > > choice is "grammar".
> >
> > This is still an outstanding issue. Any suggestions?
>
> schemas?
>
> There was a massive XML-DEV thread about schemas vs schemata.
> I can't remember which side won.
If anyone is interested then Google found it. This link
will dump you in the middle of two threads on the topic.
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200106/threads.html#01024
I tried, but emerged as a blithering wreck.
> > > 3) We still need a one-liner too. This is needed for
> > > Bugzilla and will be useful elsewhere.
> >
> > Peter Donald wrote:
> > > Or maybe even more raw
> > >
> > > "Flexible, standards-based, site development tool."
> >
> > > In time it would be nice to add in "Easy-to-use" :)
> >
> > With a little cooking ...
> > "Standards-based site documentation framework"
>
> +1
>
> --Jeff
>
> > > Robert Koberg wrote:
> > > > wait, too many words :) it just needs:
> > > >
> > > > Standards based site development that provides the
> > > > building blocks to allow growth in any direction.
Re: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:36:42PM +1100, David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> <snip/>
> >
> > Here is the current draft:
> > "Forrest is an XML standards-oriented project documentation
> > framework based on Apache Cocoon, providing XSLT stylesheets
> > and schema, images and other resources. Forrest uses these to
> > render the XML source content into a website via command-line,
> > robot, or a dynamic web application. Start with a small static
> > site and grow to a dynamic application."
> >
> > Issues:
> > 1) Is it getting too long?
Maybe we should drop the last line.. it really needs a separate
paragraph.
> > 2) "schema" is a singular word, "schemata" is the proper plural,
> > but it sounds like a disease or a religious affliction. Is there
> > a better term? I am trying to avoid specific terms like DTD,
> > WXS, or XML Schema (when they mean W3C XML Schema). One other
> > choice is "grammar".
>
> This is still an outstanding issue. Any suggestions?
schemas?
There was a massive XML-DEV thread about schemas vs schemata.. I can't
remember which side won.
> > 3) We still need a one-liner too. This is needed for
> > Bugzilla and will be useful elsewhere.
>
> Peter Donald wrote:
> > Or maybe even more raw
> >
> > "Flexible, standards-based, site development tool."
>
> > In time it would be nice to add in "Easy-to-use" :)
>
> With a little cooking ...
> "Standards-based site documentation framework"
+1
--Jeff
> > Robert Koberg wrote:
> > > wait, too many words :) it just needs:
> > >
> > > Standards based site development that provides the
> > > building blocks to allow growth in any direction.
>
>
>
Re: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
David Crossley wrote:
<snip/>
>
> Here is the current draft:
> "Forrest is an XML standards-oriented project documentation
> framework based on Apache Cocoon, providing XSLT stylesheets
> and schema, images and other resources. Forrest uses these to
> render the XML source content into a website via command-line,
> robot, or a dynamic web application. Start with a small static
> site and grow to a dynamic application."
>
> Issues:
> 1) Is it getting too long?
>
> 2) "schema" is a singular word, "schemata" is the proper plural,
> but it sounds like a disease or a religious affliction. Is there
> a better term? I am trying to avoid specific terms like DTD,
> WXS, or XML Schema (when they mean W3C XML Schema). One other
> choice is "grammar".
This is still an outstanding issue. Any suggestions?
> 3) We still need a one-liner too. This is needed for
> Bugzilla and will be useful elsewhere.
Peter Donald wrote:
> Or maybe even more raw
>
> "Flexible, standards-based, site development tool."
> In time it would be nice to add in "Easy-to-use" :)
With a little cooking ...
"Standards-based site documentation framework"
> Robert Koberg wrote:
> > wait, too many words :) it just needs:
> >
> > Standards based site development that provides the
> > building blocks to allow growth in any direction.
RE: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
Hi Bert,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert Van Kets [mailto:bert@vankets.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:41 AM
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: sync various descriptions of Forrest
>
>
> At 03:08 3/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Knowing that one of the goals of the forrest project is to create standards
> >based sites, I wanted to check if
> >http://xml.apache.org/forrest/ is valid according to the standards
> >initiatives.
> >
> >It fails on validating to HTML 4.01 transitional. Check at:
> >http://validator.w3.org/
> >
> >It fails U.S. Section 508 Guidelines:
> >http://bobby.watchfire.com/
> >(I don't know what you have to do to get 'Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines
> >1.0' valid - koberg.com doesn't even validate to this...)
> >
> >And it fails on CSS:
> >http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html
> >
> >I would suggest that rather than focus on fixing current styling
> (though it is
> >not far from being valid), that effort is put toward developing a tableless
> >layout.
>
> Rob,
> I have some time coming up to get cracking on this. Can you give some
> suggestions on haw to create a NS4.x compatible tableless layout.
> IMHO NS4.x does not allow this as it does not interprete the DIV and SPAN
> tags correctly (for starters).
I just looked at our new site in Nav4.7. I think it is OK for Nav4 users (except
our logo is white on a white backgrouund...).
Checkout http://www.livestoryboard.com
It looks similar in lynx.
Should we cater to the (less than) 1% of Nav users or the 10-20% of visually
impaired users?
If you all want, we can use the livestoryboard.com site as a base for a forrest
skin. We have put ALOT of work into the layout/css. The site can look extremely
different by simply changing the CSS.
best,
-Rob
>
> Bert
>
>
> >best,
> >-Rob
RE: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by Bert Van Kets <be...@vankets.com>.
At 03:08 3/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Knowing that one of the goals of the forrest project is to create standards
>based sites, I wanted to check if
>http://xml.apache.org/forrest/ is valid according to the standards
>initiatives.
>
>It fails on validating to HTML 4.01 transitional. Check at:
>http://validator.w3.org/
>
>It fails U.S. Section 508 Guidelines:
>http://bobby.watchfire.com/
>(I don't know what you have to do to get 'Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
>1.0' valid - koberg.com doesn't even validate to this...)
>
>And it fails on CSS:
>http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html
>
>I would suggest that rather than focus on fixing current styling (though it is
>not far from being valid), that effort is put toward developing a tableless
>layout.
Rob,
I have some time coming up to get cracking on this. Can you give some
suggestions on haw to create a NS4.x compatible tableless layout.
IMHO NS4.x does not allow this as it does not interprete the DIV and SPAN
tags correctly (for starters).
Bert
>best,
>-Rob
Standards compliance (Was: sync various descriptions of Forrest)
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Robert Koberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Knowing that one of the goals of the forrest project is to create standards
> based sites, I wanted to check if
> http://xml.apache.org/forrest/ is valid according to the standards initiatives.
Excellent work Robert. This is extremely important.
> It fails on validating to HTML 4.01 transitional. Check at:
> http://validator.w3.org/
>
> It fails U.S. Section 508 Guidelines:
> http://bobby.watchfire.com/
> (I don't know what you have to do to get 'Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
> 1.0' valid - koberg.com doesn't even validate to this...)
>
> And it fails on CSS:
> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html
>
> I would suggest that rather than focus on fixing current styling
> (though it is not far from being valid), that effort is put
> toward developing a tableless layout.
I would like to see both happening. Tweak the current
stuff to get as close as possible, and perhaps uncover
some issues in the process. Simultaneously work on a
tableless layout. This would be just another skin, and
perhaps its own sitemap. Please provide patches and we
will get started with both jobs.
There is a new document in Forrest: compliance.xml
This has the URLs and info that Robert has initiated.
There are also some dot points, where i have listed
some important issues from each. Please add more.
--David
RE: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
Hi,
Knowing that one of the goals of the forrest project is to create standards
based sites, I wanted to check if
http://xml.apache.org/forrest/ is valid according to the standards initiatives.
It fails on validating to HTML 4.01 transitional. Check at:
http://validator.w3.org/
It fails U.S. Section 508 Guidelines:
http://bobby.watchfire.com/
(I don't know what you have to do to get 'Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
1.0' valid - koberg.com doesn't even validate to this...)
And it fails on CSS:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html
I would suggest that rather than focus on fixing current styling (though it is
not far from being valid), that effort is put toward developing a tableless
layout.
best,
-Rob
Re: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
Or maybe even more raw
"Flexible, standards-based, site development tool."
In time it would be nice to add in "Easy-to-use" :)
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:03, Robert Koberg wrote:
> wait, too many words :) it just needs:
>
> Standards based site development that provides the building blocks to allow
> growth in any direction.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Koberg [mailto:rob@koberg.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 5:49 PM
> > To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: sync various descriptions of Forrest
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@indexgeo.com.au]
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) We still need a one-liner too. This is needed for
> > > Bugzilla and will be useful elsewhere.
> >
> > How about something like:
> >
> > Standards based site development that provides the building blocks to
> > allow growth in any direction you want.
> >
> > best,
> > -Rob
> >
> > > --David
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*-----------------------------------------------------*
* "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, *
* and proving that there is no need to do so - almost *
* everyone gets busy on the proof." *
* - John Kenneth Galbraith *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
RE: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
wait, too many words :) it just needs:
Standards based site development that provides the building blocks to allow
growth in any direction.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Koberg [mailto:rob@koberg.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 5:49 PM
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: sync various descriptions of Forrest
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@indexgeo.com.au]
>
> >
> > 3) We still need a one-liner too. This is needed for
> > Bugzilla and will be useful elsewhere.
>
> How about something like:
>
> Standards based site development that provides the building blocks to allow
> growth in any direction you want.
>
> best,
> -Rob
>
>
> >
> > --David
> >
> >
>
>
RE: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@indexgeo.com.au]
>
> 3) We still need a one-liner too. This is needed for
> Bugzilla and will be useful elsewhere.
How about something like:
Standards based site development that provides the building blocks to allow
growth in any direction you want.
best,
-Rob
>
> --David
>
>
Re: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > > I have noticed that Forrest is described inconsistently
> > > in various documents. So i have gathered together the
> > > descriptions to start refinement. I think that we need a
> > > longish description (refine what we have at A) and
> > > also develop a one-liner.
> >
> > Excellent idea. It's the first thing users see, sent out
> > with every project announcement.. well worth polishing.
> <snip/>
> > > > A) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/index.xml
> > > > Forrest provides a robust technological infrastructure for
> > > > open software development for the Apache Software Foundation
> > > > based on ASF software, ASF practices and experience, and
> > > > modern software design principles.
> > >
> > > Having read that, is a potential user _any_ closer to knowing
> > > what Forrest actually is? To me it seems almost meaningless.
> > > "robust
> > > technical infrastructure".. an operating system perhaps? :)
> > >
> > > How about:
> > >
> > > "Forrest is an XML-oriented project documentation system based on
> > > Apache Cocoon. It contains XML schemas (DTDs), XSLT stylesheets,
> > > images and other resources used to render a project's XML source
> > > files into a website."
> >
> > Better. Here is my version.
> >
> > "Forrest is an XML-oriented project documentation framework
> > based on Apache Cocoon, providing XSLT stylesheets and schema,
> > images and other resources. Forrest uses these to render the
> > XML source content into a website via command-line, robot, or
> > a dynamic web application."
>
> Better still :)
>
> Perhaps "XML standards-oriented" instead of "XML-oriented"? It hints
> that we prefer standard ways of doing things: XSLT over Velocity etc,
> which is a nice selling point.
>
> Would be nice to somehow convey that Forrest scales from static to
> dynamic sites. Ie, start out with a small static site, then when you
> find you need user login, feedback modules or RSS feeds, switch
> painlessly to a live webapp. I don't know of anything else that offers
> this possibility.
Here is the current draft:
"Forrest is an XML standards-oriented project documentation
framework based on Apache Cocoon, providing XSLT stylesheets
and schema, images and other resources. Forrest uses these to
render the XML source content into a website via command-line,
robot, or a dynamic web application. Start with a small static
site and grow to a dynamic application."
Issues:
1) Is it getting too long?
2) "schema" is a singular word, "schemata" is the proper plural,
but it sounds like a disease or a religious affliction. Is there
a better term? I am trying to avoid specific terms like DTD,
WXS, or XML Schema (when they mean W3C XML Schema). One other
choice is "grammar".
3) We still need a one-liner too. This is needed for
Bugzilla and will be useful elsewhere.
--David
Re: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 05:47:33PM +1100, David Crossley wrote:
....
> > > A) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/index.xml
> > > Forrest provides a robust technological infrastructure for
> > > open software development for the Apache Software Foundation
> > > based on ASF software, ASF practices and experience, and
> > > modern software design principles.
> >
> > Having read that, is a potential user _any_ closer to knowing what
> > Forrest actually is? To me it seems almost meaningless. "robust
> > technical infrastructure".. an operating system perhaps? :)
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > "Forrest is an XML-oriented project documentation system based on
> > Apache Cocoon. It contains XML schemas (DTDs), XSLT stylesheets,
> > images and other resources used to render a project's XML source files
> > into a website."
>
> Better. Here is my version.
>
> "Forrest is an XML-oriented project documentation framework
> based on Apache Cocoon, providing XSLT stylesheets and schema,
> images and other resources. Forrest uses these to render the
> XML source content into a website via command-line, robot, or
> a dynamic web application."
Better still :)
Perhaps "XML standards-oriented" instead of "XML-oriented"? It hints
that we prefer standard ways of doing things: XSLT over Velocity etc,
which is a nice selling point.
Would be nice to somehow convey that Forrest scales from static to
dynamic sites. Ie, start out with a small static site, then when you
find you need user login, feedback modules or RSS feeds, switch
painlessly to a live webapp. I don't know of anything else that offers
this possibility.
--Jeff
> --David
Re: forrest seed : schema problem
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:47:37PM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:37:17AM +0000, Ian Blizard wrote:
> > Hi all.
> >
> > Just a heads up, the 'forrest seed' command doesn't copy over the
> > resources/schema dir, this breaks 'forrest site'.
>
> Yep.. I'm about to commit a fixed Ant that ignores nonexistent schema
> dirs.
Should now be fixed.
--Jeff
> > -Buzz.
> >
Re: forrest seed : schema problem
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:37:17AM +0000, Ian Blizard wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Just a heads up, the 'forrest seed' command doesn't copy over the
> resources/schema dir, this breaks 'forrest site'.
Yep.. I'm about to commit a fixed Ant that ignores nonexistent schema
dirs.
--Jeff
> -Buzz.
>
forrest seed : schema problem
Posted by Ian Blizard <bu...@samsungcontact.com>.
Hi all.
Just a heads up, the 'forrest seed' command doesn't copy over the
resources/schema dir, this breaks 'forrest site'.
-Buzz.
Re: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > I have noticed that Forrest is described inconsistently
> > in various documents. So i have gathered together the
> > descriptions to start refinement. I think that we need a
> > longish description (refine what we have at A) and
> > also develop a one-liner.
>
> Excellent idea. It's the first thing users see, sent out with
> every project announcement.. well worth polishing.
>
> > The long description also needs to be more clear that
> > the intent is broader than Apache.
> >
> > We are going to need to make an official release of Forrest
> > soon (not that i am taking on a release manager's job).
> > A good clear description will be needed for that.
> >
> > Perhaps we should start again and get down some dot-points,
> > then develop a description from them:
> > * Based on robust Apache software, practices and experience
>
> One would hope that every Apache project has that quality.
> Is Forrest any different that it's worth mentioning?
>
> > * Can be applied to any ASF project
> > * Can be applied to your own private project
> > * based on XML/XSLT
> > * many modes of operation (shbat, forrestbot, webapp - but
> > not using those techy terms)
> > * management of local and remote website production
> > * ... please add more ...
> >
> > We also need to fine-tune the three main documents that
> > describe Forrest (A, B, D). Forrest has progressed a lot
> > and they need all review. I am happy to help out a bit.
> >
> > I see that Forrest promises more than it is currently
> > delivering, e.g. says that is for management of projects,
> > provides statistics and metrics, makes comparison with
> > Sourceforge etc. I think that this is dangerous and
> > some of these should be moved to dreams.xml
>
> +1
>
> > Anyway here is what we have now ...
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > A) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/index.xml
> > B) xml-forrest/index.html
> > C) xml-forrest/module.xml
> > (The docs A, B, and C have basically the same intro.)
> > ------
> > Forrest provides a robust technological infrastructure for
> > open software development for the Apache Software Foundation
> > based on ASF software, ASF practices and experience, and
> > modern software design principles.
>
> Having read that, is a potential user _any_ closer to knowing what
> Forrest actually is? To me it seems almost meaningless. "robust
> technical infrastructure".. an operating system perhaps? :)
>
> How about:
>
> "Forrest is an XML-oriented project documentation system based on
> Apache Cocoon. It contains XML schemas (DTDs), XSLT stylesheets,
> images and other resources used to render a project's XML source files
> into a website."
Better. Here is my version.
"Forrest is an XML-oriented project documentation framework
based on Apache Cocoon, providing XSLT stylesheets and schema,
images and other resources. Forrest uses these to render the
XML source content into a website via command-line, robot, or
a dynamic web application."
--David
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > D) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/primer.xml
> > (This is the first sentence of the "What is Forrest" section.
> > It goes on to describe with more detail and some of those
> > words will be useful for a top-level description.)
> > ------
> > Forrest is a framework that supports the cross-project
> > generation and management of development project websites
> > using Cocoon as its XML publishing framework.
>
> "It not only provides access to project documentation, but also to
> other types of information that open source developers depend upon
> daily: source code repositories, mailing lists, contact info and the
> like. It aggregates all these resources and publishes them on a regular
> basis to a website"
>
> Which isn't exactly untrue, but not very true either.
>
> --Jeff
>
>
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Other issues
> > ------------
> > 1) Try view-source of B) xml-forrest/index.html
> > I was horrified by the HTML source there. We need to
> > make it clear that this mess was not built by Forrest,
> > then proceed to clean it up.
> >
> > 2) Should we be referring to "ASF" or "Apache"?
> >
> > 3) Do we need to mention the actual technologies (such
> > as Cocoon) in a top-level description?
> >
> > --David
> >
Re: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 06:25:53PM +1100, David Crossley wrote:
> I have noticed that Forrest is described inconsistently
> in various documents. So i have gathered together the
> descriptions to start refinement. I think that we need a
> longish description (refine what we have at A) and
> also develop a one-liner.
Excellent idea. It's the first thing users see, sent out with every
project announcement.. well worth polishing.
> The long description also needs to be more clear that
> the intent is broader than Apache.
>
> We are going to need to make an official release of Forrest
> soon (not that i am taking on a release manager's job).
> A good clear description will be needed for that.
>
> Perhaps we should start again and get down some dot-points,
> then develop a description from them:
> * Based on robust Apache software, practices and experience
One would hope that every Apache project has that quality. Is Forrest
any different that it's worth mentioning?
> * Can be applied to any ASF project
> * Can be applied to your own private project
> * based on XML/XSLT
> * many modes of operation (shbat, forrestbot, webapp - but
> not using those techy terms)
> * management of local and remote website production
> * ... please add more ...
>
> We also need to fine-tune the three main documents that
> describe Forrest (A, B, D). Forrest has progressed a lot
> and they need all review. I am happy to help out a bit.
>
> I see that Forrest promises more than it is currently
> delivering, e.g. says that is for management of projects,
> provides statistics and metrics, makes comparison with
> Sourceforge etc. I think that this is dangerous and
> some of these should be moved to dreams.xml
+1
> Anyway here is what we have now ...
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> A) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/index.xml
> B) xml-forrest/index.html
> C) xml-forrest/module.xml
> (The docs A, B, and C have basically the same intro.)
> ------
> Forrest provides a robust technological infrastructure for
> open software development for the Apache Software Foundation
> based on ASF software, ASF practices and experience, and
> modern software design principles.
Having read that, is a potential user _any_ closer to knowing what
Forrest actually is? To me it seems almost meaningless. "robust
technical infrastructure".. an operating system perhaps? :)
How about:
"Forrest is an XML-oriented project documentation system based on
Apache Cocoon. It contains XML schemas (DTDs), XSLT stylesheets,
images and other resources used to render a project's XML source files
into a website."
> --------------------------------------------------
> D) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/primer.xml
> (This is the first sentence of the "What is Forrest" section.
> It goes on to describe with more detail and some of those
> words will be useful for a top-level description.)
> ------
> Forrest is a framework that supports the cross-project
> generation and management of development project websites
> using Cocoon as its XML publishing framework.
"It not only provides access to project documentation, but also to
other types of information that open source developers depend upon
daily: source code repositories, mailing lists, contact info and the
like. It aggregates all these resources and publishes them on a regular
basis to a website"
Which isn't exactly untrue, but not very true either.
--Jeff
> --------------------------------------------------
> Other issues
> ------------
> 1) Try view-source of B) xml-forrest/index.html
> I was horrified by the HTML source there. We need to
> make it clear that this mess was not built by Forrest,
> then proceed to clean it up.
>
> 2) Should we be referring to "ASF" or "Apache"?
>
> 3) Do we need to mention the actual technologies (such
> as Cocoon) in a top-level description?
>
> --David
>