On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > [...] > > <map:components> is getting bigger and bigger, and often bigger than > > <map:pipelines> itself. So what about allowing it to be in a separate > > file : > > <map:sitemap> > > <map:components src="sitemap.xconf"/> > > <map:pipelines> > > .... > > </map:pipelines> > > <map:sitemap> > > > > This can also be a first step towards the future structure of blocks. > > At one time we wanted all the components in sitemap.xmap, at other times > we leaned to putting them in cocoon.xconf. > > After some time, this is MHO on the subject: > > - cocoon.xconf is just about the components that make up Cocoon > the contents are hardcoded or added by the build system for the > "features" and "environments" > > - sitemap.xmap is about defining the sitemap. Its components > can be declared in a separate file it references > > - components.xmap, or components.xcomp or sitemap.xcomp > or sitemap.xconf ... > holds component declarations for sitemaps, that can reference it. > > I know it's what you have just said, I just can't help being formal > these days ;-)
I'm not very happy to add semantics for inclusion to the sitemap syntax. Can't we stick with DTD Entities to do it? The details of the block architecture should give a solution to these problems (at least I see it that way). What do you think? Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
