Site structure and sub-sitemaps

[Piroumian Konstantin <KP...@protek.com>]

Hi, forresters!

What is your opinion on sub-sitemap usage for community section (and for
others in future)? Having all the handling in the root sitemap is not a good
idea as showed Cocoon's experience (have you seen its root sitemap?). If
there are no objections then was is the proposed location for subsitemaps? 

Btw, what is the reason to use matchers like 'body-**.xml' instead of
'body/**.xml'? IMO, using directory separators is more readable than the
current approach. (E.g., in i18n samples in C2.1-dev I used 'content/*.xml'
and 'menu/*.xml' patterns and the result was the same).

--
Konstantin Piroumian 
kpiroumian@apache.org

RE: Site structure and sub-sitemaps

[Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>]

> From: Piroumian Konstantin [mailto:KPiroumian@protek.com]

> What is your opinion on sub-sitemap usage for community
> section (and for
> others in future)? Having all the handling in the root
> sitemap is not a good
> idea as showed Cocoon's experience (have you seen its root
> sitemap?). If
> there are no objections then was is the proposed location for
> subsitemaps?

Konstantin,

this would mean people adopting Forrest for their project documentation
purposes would perhaps need knowledge about the sitemap syntax. If at
all possible, I will vigorously -1 this because it might decrease the
probability of Forrest adoption.

Trying to catch up mails over the past few days (boy, we've never been
so active before!), I'm starting to feel a danger of deficient
packaging/scoping: we are focusing on the documentation (website,
samples) of Forrest (which we need, of course), but we must not forget
its basic mode of operations: aggregating XML Apache sub-projects
documentation and rendering it in a comprehensive fashion. The XML
Apache main site, the Forrest website, and other sub-project websites
should be the result of running Forrest on top of these documentation
'repositories', the Forrest website basically being the product of
applying Forrest on itself. I will try to draft an RT on this.

> Btw, what is the reason to use matchers like 'body-**.xml' instead of
> 'body/**.xml'? IMO, using directory separators is more
> readable than the
> current approach. (E.g., in i18n samples in C2.1-dev I used
> 'content/*.xml'
> and 'menu/*.xml' patterns and the result was the same).

No opinion on that one, since they are internal to the sitemap ;-)

</Steven>