Re: Shambhala

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> It's a shame that nobody using Shambhala (who must have realised
> what was going on) didn't raise these issues weeks ago. I can only
> presume that rst was too modest to push Shambhala, or at least
> discussion of it, onto use more vigourously.

You must have missed my "Shambhala Rocks!" post shortly after Shambhala2.
  :-)

> I remember saying words to the effect of "this is what I plan to 
> do, stop me if you think this isn't a good idea". Why the hell didn't
> anyone say something ? ... did others get the same impression about
> rst's work as I did ?. Come on people, if you want to be part of this
> group, collaborate !.
> 

I think the bottom line is that RST moved much faster than anyone
could have guessed.  I really just started working seriously with it
last weekend.


> That said, and after looking at the code and trying (for a few minutes)
> it looks great, and I've no objection to switching to it.

I think that is 4 +1's for shambhala!  :-)

Having come to that conclusion, I'll spill my guts about known problems.

1. There seems to be a problem in content_neg WRT .var files.  I will sort
this out tonight or tomorrow.

2. If I reference a URL via an ISMAP, the CWD is that of 'imagemap' and
not the URL.