forrest:views and xhtml2

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

Hi all,
why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)

Forrest Tuseday was a great success (was Re: forrest:views and xhtml2)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Diwaker Gupta wrote:
> I'm inclined to say that I sense some
> personal frustration in this thread.

You are correct, and very wise to highlight it (I'm looking inward, I am 
not making assumptions about other posters).

I've snipped loads of stuff that I agree with, but left what I think is 
the most important message in your post, just so folk can read it again 
if they wish, I've changed the subject too to make sure it doesn't get 
lost in peoples noise filters:

> o the first FT was (hopefully) fun for people. 
> o For those who like to "hack around", it must have been a valuable
> hands on experience to know more about views and sitemaps
> o as a result more people are now comfortable working with views (so
> we have more, much needed man power)
> o and, we have a more concrete understanding of what are the problems
> that need to be solved.

Ross

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

[Diwaker Gupta <di...@apache.org>]

Hi all,

While the discussion in this thread is valuable, I'm not sure it is
sending the right message across. We must try and keep the discussions
analytical, where possible -- I'm inclined to say that I sense some
personal frustration in this thread.

Anyhow, I'm writing just to clear up some confusion in my head:

o As a community, I think we agreed that XHTML2 was the way forward
o Again, as a community, we agreed that views were the way forward
o At some point, views will have to move into Forrest core, and so will XHTML2
o Views had been under development, are usable, but not yet into core
o Our first FT was largely experimental -- people played around with
XHTML2; for lack of time and keeping in mind the future merge of views
and XHTML2 into core, some shortcuts were taken (copying over of old
sitemaps for instance) to get "something" working and show up in the
browser

On the whole, I think this is *great* and I don't really see what the
problem is.

o the first FT was (hopefully) fun for people. 
o For those who like to "hack around", it must have been a valuable
hands on experience to know more about views and sitemaps
o as a result more people are now comfortable working with views (so
we have more, much needed man power)
o and, we have a more concrete understanding of what are the problems
that need to be solved.

In the end, I think this will all add up to a neater, leaner, cleaner
architecture for the new Forrest core.  Maybe we're trying to do too
much with this plugin. But we have to start *somewhere*, and we won't
find out until we do it.

For me, involvement in Forrest is *purely* for fun -- I don't use it
in any work related areas. I felt the first FT was fun, just to hang
around and learn a little bit more about people. For some (maybe most)
devs, Forrest might be more work related, and thus more important
professionally and so I understand if people are concerned about
making good use of their time. But thats the beauty of this
environment right -- that we can choose to work on what we want, how
we want, in a way that makes most sense to us?

So really, whats the big deal here?
-- 
Web/Blog/Gallery: floatingsun.net

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 09:31 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
>>Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>

...

>>>>Views are to go into core as soon as they are mature enough.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If they are not mature enough, why are they going then into this plugin?
>>>What are missing to make them mature enough?
>>
>>I didn't say they were not mature enough *you* did. I proposed moving 
>>them into core immediately after the 0.7 release. I proposed it again 
>>about a week ago.
>>
> 
> 
> Hmm, who said they have to go into the whiteboard instead of let them in
> the core plugins in the first place? 

That was during the 0.7-dev phase, now we are in the 0.8-dev phase. 
Things move on.

> If you think they should move does
> it mean that we e.g. agree on the naming? Every second mail your are
> complaining they are to complicated and need changing, now I want to
> discuss this but ...(change my name with yours):
> "Honestly Thorsten, sometimes I find it impossible to please you." 

OK, so discuss it. I have made my opinion clear on the naming, I'm with 
Davids suggestion of using structurer and I have started using it in my 
mails and *experimental* whiteboard work. I've been using forest:views 
as a collective term for the whole lot (structurer, contracts, 
templates, themes etc.).

I'm comfortable with that.

>>>>XHTML2 work requires a rewrite of a large proposrtion of core.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>agree, but should we not just focus on the document part first?
>>
>>The document part is done, now for the next stage.
>>
> 
> 
> Hmm, really? 

Yes. If you think otherwise please actually say why.

The goal of Forrest Tuesday was to make Forrest core work with XHTML2 
*not* to rewrite the core sitemaps or the forrest:views implementation.

The current *experimental* whiteboard plugin works, in a limited way, 
with XHTML2 at its core. It does not rewrite any of the sitemaps. what 
it does to is provide a base on which we can convert the existing 
contracts to work with XHTML2.

>>>>Skins are to be deprecated when views go into core.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Should we not state this officially first?
>>
>>I suppose we have never called a vote on this buyt I think it is pretty 
>>clear to anyone who reads the dev list.
>>
> 
> 
> That it is obvious not makes it official.

What is the problem with conducting some *experimental* work in the 
whiteboard ahead of the vote being taken?

>>>>Doing the XHTML2 work in skins would be wasted effort.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Agree partly, you and me having the same thought of getting away from
>>>tab, menu, doc and site processing, but are we *all* agree on that? 
>>
>>I think so, all the discussions about forrest:views have been about 
>>doing this and the TR states it.
>>
> 
> 
> *You* stated that we need to modify the TR if we agree on the
> terminology of views. What happened with that?

I suggested modifying the title of one section in order to remove 
confusion between forrest:views and forrest:themes. I did *not* suggest 
changing the meaning of the document.

What is the problem here?

>>However, we never had a vote, so it is not *the* way of doing it yet.
>>
> 
> 
> Exactly. I would like to see that is official.

OK, if you think the community has discussed it/explored it enough to 
call the vote then do so. Personally I think we need to experiment a 
little more first. The XHTML2 plugin is one part of that experimentation.

>>>>Therefore we use views.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually I have problems to follow this logic, see the question above.
>>
>>I find it ironic that you now want to talk about things rather than just 
>>get on with them. 
> 
> 
> Why? I never stated, one do not have to talk. It is about finding the
> balance. Going ahead and trying to rewrite the core of forrest because
> one person stated in a sentence is not what I meant. Even more if one or
> two are trying to do this by themselves. 

We had a +1 from you to use views I figured that meant you supported the 
idea, why do we need to discuss further? The rest is implementation detail.

Here's how I see it working.

We now have an XHTML2 plugin that gives us a framework for converting 
the contracts to XHTML2. We can therefore get on with the important task 
of converting part of the future Forrest implementation (contracts) to 
work with XHTML2. In the meantime you and others can continue your 
refactoring work on the other part of the future Forrest implementation 
(structurer).

When the refactoring is complete we can bring it all together and we are 
  ready to test (OK it won't be that simple, but we need to move 
forwards somehow).

> It is like comparing apples with peaches (sorry if that not makes sense
> in English it is a literal translation).

We (UK) say Apples and Oranges so it works for me.

>>I believe this is the right approach, on Forrest 
>>Tuesday I did a load of work towards this approach (thanks to the 
>>groundwork put in place by others earlier in the day).
>>
> 
> 
> I think I did some comments on that in the commits. 

Yes, and my response is still the same. We needed to get up and running 
quickly, we are now up and running in an experimental environment. We 
now have a framework for converting the contracts to XHTML2

> I do not think the
> implementation of views is done well (honestly I think actually is done
> really bad). Stating I can fix that is not the way I will go, I do not
> feel like cleaning up that code because it would be faster for me to do
> it from the ground up.

Great - please go ahead and do it. Nobody is saying you have to work on 
the code in the XHTML2 plugin, you keep working on the existing views 
plugins using XDocs. When the refactoring is complete we can merge the 
stuff.

> "If you want to change something give an example that is working and we
> can discuss this."
> 
> I am trying to discuss the approach you have chosen right now, or not? I
> thing with this approach we doing *too* much extra work and I am not
> willing to take that burden, sorry.

All the XHTML2 plugin does is provide a *version* of the *current* core 
that works with XHTML2. That was the *goal* of Forrest Tuesday.

It is a long way from complete, but it is a long way further on than it 
was on Monday. Clearly it is not the approach that you wanted to take, 
sorry, but we worked hard on that and you should recognise that and draw 
some lessons from it rather than just complaining.

>>So lets have specific reasons why this is not the right approach so that 
>>we can get on with improving what we have.
> 
> 
> See my and your comments on the commits:
> On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 13:15 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
>>Because, as I said, I wanted to get on with some work and didn't want
>>to 
>>have to debug code that was not working. Tim said he was going to fix 
>>it, but we got onto other things.
> 
> 
> We should concentrate doing one step at a time.

Which task do you want to concentrate on?

The task for Forrest Tuesday was to get XHTML2 working not to refactor 
the sitemaps or views. That is what the XHTML2 plugin does (yes, it 
provides a framework in which we can do the wider refactoring, but it 
does not do that yet)

It is not possible to go further forward without doing some refactoring 
of views. So now we need to start doing that. I fail to see what the 
problem is, lets stop complaining about the work that we *have* done and 
proceed with making a plan for the next stage.

>>Because I wanted to work on XHTML2 which was the goal. I thought this 
>>was needed since it was in the sitemaps. I don't understand what you 
>>have done in the LM fallback resolver, you weren't present and I
>>wanted 
>>to move forward, at that point I was on my own - go ahead and make
>>the 
>>necessary changes - you now have code to work with.
> 
> 
> If you are not understand something then *please* ask. Like stated above
> cleaning this code cost more time then to write it again.

You were not present to ask and those present did not have the 
background knowledge to start from scratch. Therefore, with some 
reluctance (check the logs), chose to copy across the whole lot in order 
to get started. We recognised (check the logs, code comments and commit 
messages) that this was not the best approach but was the fastest way to 
get working.

If *you* want to start from scratch and help us in an asynchronous 
fashion that is fantastic. We simply need to rip out structure.xmap and 
start work. I assume this will be your approach since you say that it 
will be quicker to start from scratch than to clean the existing code. 
Surely, you can understand that it was all put into a single file to 
make it *easy* to do this subsequent refactoring, i.e. stip out the old 
versions, write the new.

So far nobody has said no when you have expressed a desire to do this, I 
can't see why you have a problem with these experiments and our 
*support* of your desire to refactor views for this work.

Please stop complaining about the *considerable* efforts of all those 
who were present on Forrest Tuesday and recognise the contribution those 
people have made to these experiments in moving over to XHTML2.

As a result of this work you will now find that more devs understand how 
views work, even more now that Tim took even more time time to document 
his experiments.

Ross

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

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

On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 09:31 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > 
> >>Tim Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi all,
> >>>>why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This seems like an odd question.  
> >>
> >>Hmmm... yes, it is..
> >>
> >>
> >>>Because views are an integral part
> >>>of the TR?   The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
> >>>new internal structure, refined views, integral locationmap usage, and
> >>>streamlined sitemap.
> >>
> >>My take is similar.
> >>
> >>Views are to go into core as soon as they are mature enough.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > If they are not mature enough, why are they going then into this plugin?
> > What are missing to make them mature enough?
> 
> I didn't say they were not mature enough *you* did. I proposed moving 
> them into core immediately after the 0.7 release. I proposed it again 
> about a week ago.
> 

Hmm, who said they have to go into the whiteboard instead of let them in
the core plugins in the first place? If you think they should move does
it mean that we e.g. agree on the naming? Every second mail your are
complaining they are to complicated and need changing, now I want to
discuss this but ...(change my name with yours):
"Honestly Thorsten, sometimes I find it impossible to please you." 


> >>XHTML2 work requires a rewrite of a large proposrtion of core.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > agree, but should we not just focus on the document part first?
> 
> The document part is done, now for the next stage.
> 

Hmm, really? 

> >>Skins are to be deprecated when views go into core.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Should we not state this officially first?
> 
> I suppose we have never called a vote on this buyt I think it is pretty 
> clear to anyone who reads the dev list.
> 

That it is obvious not makes it official.

> >>Doing the XHTML2 work in skins would be wasted effort.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Agree partly, you and me having the same thought of getting away from
> > tab, menu, doc and site processing, but are we *all* agree on that? 
> 
> I think so, all the discussions about forrest:views have been about 
> doing this and the TR states it.
> 

*You* stated that we need to modify the TR if we agree on the
terminology of views. What happened with that?

> However, we never had a vote, so it is not *the* way of doing it yet.
> 

Exactly. I would like to see that is official.

> >>Therefore we use views.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Actually I have problems to follow this logic, see the question above.
> 
> I find it ironic that you now want to talk about things rather than just 
> get on with them. 

Why? I never stated, one do not have to talk. It is about finding the
balance. Going ahead and trying to rewrite the core of forrest because
one person stated in a sentence is not what I meant. Even more if one or
two are trying to do this by themselves. 

It is like comparing apples with peaches (sorry if that not makes sense
in English it is a literal translation).

> I believe this is the right approach, on Forrest 
> Tuesday I did a load of work towards this approach (thanks to the 
> groundwork put in place by others earlier in the day).
> 

I think I did some comments on that in the commits. I do not think the
implementation of views is done well (honestly I think actually is done
really bad). Stating I can fix that is not the way I will go, I do not
feel like cleaning up that code because it would be faster for me to do
it from the ground up.

> The work may not be accepted into core once it is complete, but the code 
> before talk approach it is exactly what you called for in 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=112574531715651&w=2
> 
> For example:
> 
> "It seems we prefer to have endless discussion and well meant
> recommendation that do not contain any specific examples (e.g. code
> discussion). If you want to change something give an example that is
> working and we can discuss this. "
> 
> Honestly Thorsten, sometimes I find it impossible to please you. This 
> may not have been the approach you would have taken, but you were not 
> present and so unable to contribute your thoughts.

"If you want to change something give an example that is working and we
can discuss this."

I am trying to discuss the approach you have chosen right now, or not? I
thing with this approach we doing *too* much extra work and I am not
willing to take that burden, sorry.

> 
> Also from your mail above:
> 
> "If somebody took the time to come up with a solution/recommendation you
> should better spend your time to enhance that instead of recommend
> something different (e.g. with another focus)."
> 
> And a final quote from your mail above:
> 
> "It seems we prefer to have endless discussion and well meant
> recommendation that do not contain any specific examples (e.g. code
> discussion). If you want to change something give an example that is
> working and we can discuss this."
> 
> So lets have specific reasons why this is not the right approach so that 
> we can get on with improving what we have.

See my and your comments on the commits:
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 13:15 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Because, as I said, I wanted to get on with some work and didn't want
> to 
> have to debug code that was not working. Tim said he was going to fix 
> it, but we got onto other things.

We should concentrate doing one step at a time.

On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 13:15 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Because I wanted to work on XHTML2 which was the goal. I thought this 
> was needed since it was in the sitemaps. I don't understand what you 
> have done in the LM fallback resolver, you weren't present and I
> wanted 
> to move forward, at that point I was on my own - go ahead and make
> the 
> necessary changes - you now have code to work with.

If you are not understand something then *please* ask. Like stated above
cleaning this code cost more time then to write it again.


Please let us bring this discussion to a constructive way. 

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
>>Tim Williams wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
>>>
>>>
>>>This seems like an odd question.  
>>
>>Hmmm... yes, it is..
>>
>>
>>>Because views are an integral part
>>>of the TR?   The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
>>>new internal structure, refined views, integral locationmap usage, and
>>>streamlined sitemap.
>>
>>My take is similar.
>>
>>Views are to go into core as soon as they are mature enough.
>>
> 
> 
> If they are not mature enough, why are they going then into this plugin?
> What are missing to make them mature enough?

I didn't say they were not mature enough *you* did. I proposed moving 
them into core immediately after the 0.7 release. I proposed it again 
about a week ago.

>>XHTML2 work requires a rewrite of a large proposrtion of core.
>>
> 
> 
> agree, but should we not just focus on the document part first?

The document part is done, now for the next stage.

>>Skins are to be deprecated when views go into core.
>>
> 
> 
> Should we not state this officially first?

I suppose we have never called a vote on this buyt I think it is pretty 
clear to anyone who reads the dev list.

>>Doing the XHTML2 work in skins would be wasted effort.
>>
> 
> 
> Agree partly, you and me having the same thought of getting away from
> tab, menu, doc and site processing, but are we *all* agree on that? 

I think so, all the discussions about forrest:views have been about 
doing this and the TR states it.

However, we never had a vote, so it is not *the* way of doing it yet.

>>Therefore we use views.
>>
> 
> 
> Actually I have problems to follow this logic, see the question above.

I find it ironic that you now want to talk about things rather than just 
get on with them. I believe this is the right approach, on Forrest 
Tuesday I did a load of work towards this approach (thanks to the 
groundwork put in place by others earlier in the day).

The work may not be accepted into core once it is complete, but the code 
before talk approach it is exactly what you called for in 
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=112574531715651&w=2

For example:

"It seems we prefer to have endless discussion and well meant
recommendation that do not contain any specific examples (e.g. code
discussion). If you want to change something give an example that is
working and we can discuss this. "

Honestly Thorsten, sometimes I find it impossible to please you. This 
may not have been the approach you would have taken, but you were not 
present and so unable to contribute your thoughts.

Also from your mail above:

"If somebody took the time to come up with a solution/recommendation you
should better spend your time to enhance that instead of recommend
something different (e.g. with another focus)."

And a final quote from your mail above:

"It seems we prefer to have endless discussion and well meant
recommendation that do not contain any specific examples (e.g. code
discussion). If you want to change something give an example that is
working and we can discuss this."

So lets have specific reasons why this is not the right approach so that 
we can get on with improving what we have.

Ross

Ross

Ross

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

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

On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
> > On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> > 
> >>Hi all,
> >>why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
> > 
> > 
> > This seems like an odd question.  
> 
> Hmmm... yes, it is..
> 
> > Because views are an integral part
> > of the TR?   The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
> > new internal structure, refined views, integral locationmap usage, and
> > streamlined sitemap.
> 
> My take is similar.
> 
> Views are to go into core as soon as they are mature enough.
> 

If they are not mature enough, why are they going then into this plugin?
What are missing to make them mature enough?

> XHTML2 work requires a rewrite of a large proposrtion of core.
> 

agree, but should we not just focus on the document part first?

> Skins are to be deprecated when views go into core.
> 

Should we not state this officially first?

> Doing the XHTML2 work in skins would be wasted effort.
> 

Agree partly, you and me having the same thought of getting away from
tab, menu, doc and site processing, but are we *all* agree on that? 

> Therefore we use views.
> 

Actually I have problems to follow this logic, see the question above.

> > Why do you ask?
> 
> Yes, please Thorsten, why do you ask, have you spotted something wrong 
> with the approach?

see above
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Tim Williams wrote:
> On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>>Hi all,
>>why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
> 
> 
> This seems like an odd question.  

Hmmm... yes, it is..

> Because views are an integral part
> of the TR?   The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
> new internal structure, refined views, integral locationmap usage, and
> streamlined sitemap.

My take is similar.

Views are to go into core as soon as they are mature enough.

XHTML2 work requires a rewrite of a large proposrtion of core.

Skins are to be deprecated when views go into core.

Doing the XHTML2 work in skins would be wasted effort.

Therefore we use views.

> Why do you ask?

Yes, please Thorsten, why do you ask, have you spotted something wrong 
with the approach?

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

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

Steady on please. We have reached a critical point
where we need to integrate some key new features.
That will be difficult. The entwinedness of all things.

Lets not get frustrated.

-David

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 21:17 -0400, Tim Williams wrote:
> 
>>On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
>>
>>This seems like an odd question.  Because views are an integral part
>>of the TR?   The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
>>new internal structure, refined views, integral locationmap usage, and
>>streamlined sitemap.
>>
> 
> 
> When did we agreed on all that? I remember a thought of Nicola (actually
> one sentence in the log) but never have seen any discussion about it on
> this list. 

There was more than one sentence, there was support from myself (and a 
simultaneous mail to this list with the same proposal). There were no 
objections.

This does not mean it was agreed (no vote, not all devs present). 
However, it does mean it is worth experimenting with.

> Actually I do *not* yet see that the plugin has turned to the
> next-gen forrest, nor that it should. 

Fair enough, nobody has said it is the "next-gen" Forrest, we are doing 
the above agreed experimentaiton in that plugin.


>>Why do you ask?
>>
> 
> 
> I see that the focus of this plugin is to wide. 
> 
> IMO we are trying to rewrite forrest with this plugin, but major parts
> *have to* change before we can do so. 

Yes, as Nicola explained at the start of Forrest Tuseday there are 
*many* major parts that need to change in order to properly leverage all 
the cool new technology we have.

> It does not seem practical to use
> e.g. the views we have now or the processing of (tab, menu, doc and
> site) and trying to rewrite the core. 

Agreed and the XHTML2 plugin does *not* use those concepts, I removed 
them in preparation for moving that funcitonlaity into nuggets.

> Copying things from one place to
> another to just make it work is not my understanding of a total rewrite
> of forrest.

We have to start somewhere. We can now rewrite the contracts to work 
with XHTML2 using this new plugin. We can now choose to start a new 
plugin to do the rewrite and when it is done we will have the contracts 
ready.

This is only one possible course of action, we could refactor within the 
plugin, we could throw the plugin away as a flawed concept, we could do 
any one of a number of different things. We have a start which is more 
than we had before.

> IMO the xhtml2 plugin should only focus in providing the intermediate
> format in xhtml2 and that's it. To integrate views into it *now* makes
> the whole thing to complicated and slows down the process.

How do we get XHTML2 into Forrest as the intermediate format without 
using the concepts that will be in core soon i.e. forrest:views?

I thought you didn't want us to work on skins anymore: "IMO we should 
focus to implement views and not adding more (endless)
work with "old fashion" skins." [1]

Honestly Thorsten, it is impossible to please you sometimes.

[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=111770109311412&w=2

Ross

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

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

On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 21:17 -0400, Tim Williams wrote:
> On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
> 
> This seems like an odd question.  Because views are an integral part
> of the TR?   The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
> new internal structure, refined views, integral locationmap usage, and
> streamlined sitemap.
> 

When did we agreed on all that? I remember a thought of Nicola (actually
one sentence in the log) but never have seen any discussion about it on
this list. Actually I do *not* yet see that the plugin has turned to the
next-gen forrest, nor that it should. 

> Why do you ask?
> 

I see that the focus of this plugin is to wide. 

IMO we are trying to rewrite forrest with this plugin, but major parts
*have to* change before we can do so. It does not seem practical to use
e.g. the views we have now or the processing of (tab, menu, doc and
site) and trying to rewrite the core. Copying things from one place to
another to just make it work is not my understanding of a total rewrite
of forrest.

IMO the xhtml2 plugin should only focus in providing the intermediate
format in xhtml2 and that's it. To integrate views into it *now* makes
the whole thing to complicated and slows down the process.

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)

Re: forrest:views and xhtml2

[Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>]

On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?

This seems like an odd question.  Because views are an integral part
of the TR?   The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
new internal structure, refined views, integral locationmap usage, and
streamlined sitemap.

Why do you ask?

--tim