[RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[Diwaker Gupta <di...@gmail.com>]

Using site.xml, it should be straightforward to automatically generate
a sitemap for the entire website. Users can simply include the
sitemap.html file in site.xml if they want it to be displayed.

What do people think?

Diwaker
-- 
Diwaker Gupta
http://resolute.ucsd.edu/diwaker

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Dave Brondsema wrote:
> 
> site.html/pdf was already in 0.5.1.  I didn't release
> that until I checked now.  Since it is, I don't think
> we should change that.

s/release/realise/

The power of Cocoon's sitemap will enable us to
provide backward compatibility for that site.html/pdf

-- 
David Crossley

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>]

On Aug 10, 2004, at 3:19 PM, Scherler, Thorsten wrote:
> Why not calling it
> site.map.xml
> ?

I think that would be fine for the site.xml/sitemap.xmap file itself 
(assuming those are the files which have the 'problem') but that 
wouldn't be much better than what we have for the sitemap.html file, or 
even the site.html/pdf file IMO.

Web Maestro Clay <we...@mac.com>
---
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand 
binary and those who don't.

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

["Scherler, Thorsten" <th...@apache.org>]

Why not calling it
site.map.xml
?

thorsten

Dave Brondsema wrote:
> site.html/pdf was already in 0.5.1.  I didn't release that until I checked
> now.  Since it is, I don't think we should change that.
> 

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Clay Leeds wrote:

>
> On Aug 9, 2004, at 8:16 PM, Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > Clay Leeds wrote:
> >> [Mildly-OT] It's a shame it can't be called some form of "Site Map"
> >> since that's what 99% of the internet calls the link on their web
> >> site (if they have one) where one can easily get to most--if not
> >> all--of their pages. Calling it anything but one of the following
> >> would probably only confuse newbies even more:
> >> - sitemap.html
> >> - site-map.html
> >> - site%20map.html
> >> - etc.
> >> Although they contain the entire site, even site.html/site.pdf may
> >> not be the best choice because of this (of course I don't have a
> >> 'solution'--sorry!).
> >> BTW, I do like the idea of a generated sitemap... but what to call it?
> >
> > What about navigation or site-structure?
> >
> > Or make it site?  And make the current site be wholesite.  I like
> > this, but it'd have to get into 0.6... it'd be too big of a
> > compatibility change to do later.
>
> These are all good alternatives, but are not the de facto standard.
> When it comes to describing a page that has all the links to a site, I
> don't think anything I can think of has the same ring as "site map".
>
> Then again, forrest's primary raison d'etre is for documentation, so
> perhaps "doc map" might do until we come up with something better.
>
> "Site" is pretty close. And I was thinking about "wholesite" as an
> alternative to the current site.html/site.pdf as it's more descriptive.
> In fact, I think it would be better to have [project]-site.html/.pdf or
> [project]-wholesite.html/.pdf, so people will know what it is when 2
> months after they've DL'ed it.

site.html/pdf was already in 0.5.1.  I didn't release that until I checked
now.  Since it is, I don't think we should change that.

-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>]

On Aug 9, 2004, at 8:16 PM, Dave Brondsema wrote:
> Clay Leeds wrote:
>> [Mildly-OT] It's a shame it can't be called some form of "Site Map" 
>> since that's what 99% of the internet calls the link on their web 
>> site (if they have one) where one can easily get to most--if not 
>> all--of their pages. Calling it anything but one of the following 
>> would probably only confuse newbies even more:
>> - sitemap.html
>> - site-map.html
>> - site%20map.html
>> - etc.
>> Although they contain the entire site, even site.html/site.pdf may 
>> not be the best choice because of this (of course I don't have a 
>> 'solution'--sorry!).
>> BTW, I do like the idea of a generated sitemap... but what to call it?
>
> What about navigation or site-structure?
>
> Or make it site?  And make the current site be wholesite.  I like 
> this, but it'd have to get into 0.6... it'd be too big of a 
> compatibility change to do later.

These are all good alternatives, but are not the de facto standard. 
When it comes to describing a page that has all the links to a site, I 
don't think anything I can think of has the same ring as "site map".

Then again, forrest's primary raison d'etre is for documentation, so 
perhaps "doc map" might do until we come up with something better.

"Site" is pretty close. And I was thinking about "wholesite" as an 
alternative to the current site.html/site.pdf as it's more descriptive. 
In fact, I think it would be better to have [project]-site.html/.pdf or 
[project]-wholesite.html/.pdf, so people will know what it is when 2 
months after they've DL'ed it.

> Either way... configurable names of these "special pages" should get 
> into future versions of forrest.

That is a nice goal for 0.7 or 0.8 :-)

Web Maestro Clay

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>]

David Crossley wrote:
> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> 
>>David Crossley wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Brondsema wrote:
>>>
>>>>What about navigation or site-structure?
>>>>
>>>>Or make it site?
>>>
>>>Anything that mentions "site" and "map" together
>>>is no good. Our users are already confused about
>>>Cocoon's sitemap and we cannot afford to introduce
>>>even more confusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>>And make the current site be wholesite.  I like this,
>>>>but it'd have to get into 0.6... it'd be too big of a compatibility
>>>>change to do later.
>>>
>>>The term "wholesite" for the aggregated doc is good.
>>>Yes we need to do it now.
>>
>>So site.html/pdf won't work anymore?  I'm okay with breaking this
>>backwards compatibility if others are too.
> 
> 
> (Sorry my other reply didn't get to the list. Repeated here.)
> 
> Surely the power of Cocoon's sitemap will enable us to
> provide backward compatibility for that site.html/pdf
> 

Yes of course.  I was thinking that adding wholesite.html/pdf would also 
require site.html/pdf to be the "site map".  But it doesn't.  The site 
map page will be something else.  Sorry for any confusion.

-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org
http://www.brondsema.net : personal

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Dave Brondsema wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > >
> > > What about navigation or site-structure?
> > >
> > > Or make it site?
> >
> > Anything that mentions "site" and "map" together
> > is no good. Our users are already confused about
> > Cocoon's sitemap and we cannot afford to introduce
> > even more confusion.
> >
> > > And make the current site be wholesite.  I like this,
> > > but it'd have to get into 0.6... it'd be too big of a compatibility
> > > change to do later.
> >
> > The term "wholesite" for the aggregated doc is good.
> > Yes we need to do it now.
> 
> So site.html/pdf won't work anymore?  I'm okay with breaking this
> backwards compatibility if others are too.

(Sorry my other reply didn't get to the list. Repeated here.)

Surely the power of Cocoon's sitemap will enable us to
provide backward compatibility for that site.html/pdf

-- 
David Crossley

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2004, David Crossley wrote:

> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> >
> > What about navigation or site-structure?
> >
> > Or make it site?
>
> Anything that mentions "site" and "map" together
> is no good. Our users are already confused about
> Cocoon's sitemap and we cannot afford to introduce
> even more confusion.
>
> > And make the current site be wholesite.  I like this,
> > but it'd have to get into 0.6... it'd be too big of a compatibility
> > change to do later.
>
> The term "wholesite" for the aggregated doc is good.
> Yes we need to do it now.
>

So site.html/pdf won't work anymore?  I'm okay with breaking this
backwards compatibility if others are too.

-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Dave Brondsema wrote:
> 
> What about navigation or site-structure?
> 
> Or make it site?

Anything that mentions "site" and "map" together
is no good. Our users are already confused about
Cocoon's sitemap and we cannot afford to introduce
even more confusion.

> And make the current site be wholesite.  I like this, 
> but it'd have to get into 0.6... it'd be too big of a compatibility 
> change to do later.

The term "wholesite" for the aggregated doc is good.
Yes we need to do it now.

> Either way... configurable names of these "special pages" should get 
> into future versions of forrest.

Yes.

-- 
David Crossley

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>]

Clay Leeds wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2004, at 5:40 PM, Diwaker Gupta wrote:
> 
>>> Your proposal is a good thing. However it cannot be
>>> called "sitemap". That means something totally different,
>>> being the machinery that drives Cocoon.
>>> http://forrest.apache.org/docs/sitemap-ref.html
>>> This is unfortunate, but we must use another name.
>>
>>
>> Well I guess the name is the least of the concerns. We could call it
>> site-layout, site-index, or site-plan). I'm not familiar with XSL, but
>> I gues it should be possible to write a site2layout.xsl to do the
>> generation right?
>>
>> I'll have a go at it if I get time. Meanwhile if someone else get to
>> it, do let us know!
> 
> 
> [Mildly-OT] It's a shame it can't be called some form of "Site Map" 
> since that's what 99% of the internet calls the link on their web site 
> (if they have one) where one can easily get to most--if not all--of 
> their pages. Calling it anything but one of the following would probably 
> only confuse newbies even more:
> - sitemap.html
> - site-map.html
> - site%20map.html
> - etc.
> 
> Although they contain the entire site, even site.html/site.pdf may not 
> be the best choice because of this (of course I don't have a 
> 'solution'--sorry!).
> 
> BTW, I do like the idea of a generated sitemap... but what to call it?
> 

What about navigation or site-structure?

Or make it site?  And make the current site be wholesite.  I like this, 
but it'd have to get into 0.6... it'd be too big of a compatibility 
change to do later.

Either way... configurable names of these "special pages" should get 
into future versions of forrest.

-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org
http://www.brondsema.net : personal

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>]

On Aug 9, 2004, at 5:40 PM, Diwaker Gupta wrote:
>> Your proposal is a good thing. However it cannot be
>> called "sitemap". That means something totally different,
>> being the machinery that drives Cocoon.
>> http://forrest.apache.org/docs/sitemap-ref.html
>> This is unfortunate, but we must use another name.
>
> Well I guess the name is the least of the concerns. We could call it
> site-layout, site-index, or site-plan). I'm not familiar with XSL, but
> I gues it should be possible to write a site2layout.xsl to do the
> generation right?
>
> I'll have a go at it if I get time. Meanwhile if someone else get to
> it, do let us know!

[Mildly-OT] It's a shame it can't be called some form of "Site Map" 
since that's what 99% of the internet calls the link on their web site 
(if they have one) where one can easily get to most--if not all--of 
their pages. Calling it anything but one of the following would 
probably only confuse newbies even more:
- sitemap.html
- site-map.html
- site%20map.html
- etc.

Although they contain the entire site, even site.html/site.pdf may not 
be the best choice because of this (of course I don't have a 
'solution'--sorry!).

BTW, I do like the idea of a generated sitemap... but what to call it?

Web Maestro Clay

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[Diwaker Gupta <di...@gmail.com>]

> Your proposal is a good thing. However it cannot be
> called "sitemap". That means something totally different,
> being the machinery that drives Cocoon.
> http://forrest.apache.org/docs/sitemap-ref.html
> This is unfortunate, but we must use another name.

Well I guess the name is the least of the concerns. We could call it
site-layout, site-index, or site-plan). I'm not familiar with XSL, but
I gues it should be possible to write a site2layout.xsl to do the
generation right?

I'll have a go at it if I get time. Meanwhile if someone else get to
it, do let us know!

-- 
Diwaker Gupta
http://resolute.ucsd.edu/diwaker

Re: [RFP] automatically generate sitemap

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Diwaker Gupta wrote:
> Using site.xml, it should be straightforward to automatically generate
> a sitemap for the entire website. Users can simply include the
> sitemap.html file in site.xml if they want it to be displayed.
> 
> What do people think?

Your proposal is a good thing. However it cannot be
called "sitemap". That means something totally different,
being the machinery that drives Cocoon.
http://forrest.apache.org/docs/sitemap-ref.html
This is unfortunate, but we must use another name.

-- 
David Crossley