On 8/29/05, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ferdinand Soethe wrote: > > Ross Gardler wrote: > > > > > >>The *implementation* of the move to XHTML2 would be eased considerably > >>by refactoring our sitemaps to use the locationmap. > > > > > > Why is that? In my limited understanding lm allows to specify the > > location of a resource in more sophisticated ways, where is the > > connection? > > Right now the sitemaps are a complex web of possible locations for many > resources, with extensive tests for the existence of a file. These are > duplicated across many sitemaps. The LM will remove all of that by > having a central file describing the location of resources. > > That is, there will be only one place to edit as we replace chunks of > the sitemap functionality. > > >>Tim reports that the > >>project locationmap mount doesn't work properly yet, but unless he tells > >>us otherwise I think we can safely move forward with this refactoring. > > > > > > Not sure this kind of lazy consensus is the right approach here. I > > understand is that Tim has pointed out a problem with the lm > > implementation. Should it not be up to us now to demo that this > > problem has been solved (us of course including Tim :-) rather than > > expecting Tim to object? > > No, you misunderstand the issue Tim has identified. > > As Locationmaps currently stand there is only one locationmap file. Tim > is working on allowing that file to import a project locationmap as > well. The project locationmap will be able to override the default > locationmap, thus users can customise Forrests directory layout without > having to redefine the whole thing. > > Tim is having a problem with this *extension* to the locationmap not > with the locationmap itself, which works perfectly.
This is correct, it does *not* effect the refactoring work. Anyway, I hope to have this resolved within the next day or so anyway so that we can mount project-level locationmaps *if* they exist. --tim
