Just put the first version, 0.1-dev, which works with Forrest 0.7 into JIRA. Ignore the first attachment.
See:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-597-- Regards,Ruswww.discountdracula
.comYour Bargain BloodSucka:Suckin' the Best Deals Outta the Web
Hi Ross, Agg!!! There's that term views again. We have a real problem here in Forrest at the moment. Views are being used to refer to two different things (views in Eclipse and views, the
replacement for skins). Now we seem to have a third use, I assume this is sitemap views (funnily enough I
Rasik Pandey wrote:
Hi Ross,
Agg!!! There's that term views again.
We have a real problem here in Forrest at the moment. Views are being
used to refer to two different things (views in Eclipse and views, the
replacement for skins). Now we seem to have a third use, I assume this
To answer you specific question. Anything defined in a plugin sitemap (internal or otherwides) has the same access limitations that you will find in any Cocoon sitemap. That means:Which
means views are bound to the sitemap in which they are defined and
leaves us two options, redeclare all
Rasik Pandey wrote:
This is a good point. How about also also providing a generator that
would get the last modified header of remote resources. The results of
the two could be aggregated together.
I think
Ross Gardler wrote: Ferdinand Soethe wrote: Good point. However, I don't think OAI has a minimal form, I did some preliminary research into it a few months ago. Let me check it out, I'll
report back. However, I'd still like to see support for Google sitemaps since we can do it very quickly and
Rasik Pandey wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Good point. However, I don't think OAI has a minimal form, I did some
preliminary research into it a few months ago. Let me check it out, I'll
report back.
However, I'd still like to see support for Google sitemaps since we
Ross Gardler wrote:
Rasik Pandey wrote:
...
and include the 'lastmod' right away as that would be the key to speedy
updates. Can we do that?
Why not use rss2.0 as the format
http://www.google.com/webmasters/sitemaps/docs/en/other.html#feed
?
It's not the format of the document
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 23:30 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Rasik Pandey wrote:
...
and include the 'lastmod' right away as that would be the key to speedy
updates. Can we do that?
Why not use rss2.0 as the format
Rasik Pandey wrote:
It's not the format of the document that is a problem, that part is
easy. The hard part is knowing when the page has been regnerated
because
of a change.
(identifying a potential solution to the problem I identified here...)
Perhaps you
Rasik Pandey wrote:
...
I already have a functioning version of this abs-linkmap -- linkmap.rss
and abs-linkmap -- sitemap.xml, but this ,
Wow, that would make a cool output plugin (making plugins is really easy
if you don't already know how see
However please do not use the name sitemap. We cannot afford confusion between this and
the real Cocoon sitemap.
Do you have any naming preferences linkmap-google.xml and linkmap-rss.xml or others?
I'm afraid I don't recall the answer to this and I am going to bed right
now. Someone will
The only requried information in the sitemap is the URL. This means we
can create the Google sitemap now, with minimal effort. Over time we can
enhance this by adding further meta-data once it becomes available.
I'm happy to go for the Google format, I just thought that our
commitment to
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
The only requried information in the sitemap is the URL. This means we
can create the Google sitemap now, with minimal effort. Over time we can
enhance this by adding further meta-data once it becomes available.
I'm happy to go for the Google format, I just thought
Ross Gardler wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
The only requried information in the sitemap is the URL. This means we
can create the Google sitemap now, with minimal effort. Over time we can
enhance this by adding further meta-data once it becomes available.
I'm happy to go for the Google
This seems to makes a lot of sense in terms of better indexing and
doesn't sound too complex to implement if we have a url-encoder
somewhere.
Although we might want to use this
http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html protocol
which is an open standard and will be accepted by
Ross Gardler wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
This seems to makes a lot of sense in terms of better indexing and
doesn't sound too complex to implement if we have a url-encoder
somewhere.
this makes a ton of sense.
Can you provide an overview of what is required with a link to more
info. I
17 matches
Mail list logo
