-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Link Livesites:
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:03:26 -0400
From: Jim Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Joerg Heinicke' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Joerg and Derek,
  The white paper (which is nearly a year old) on our Web site does refer to
XML applications we had developed using Cocoon 1, so that's why there is no
mention of the sitemap of Cocoon2. In fact, that paper is directed to a
general web site audience who may be wondering about the
advantages/drawbacks of moving from an HTML-based website to an XML-based
website. So while we do mention Cocoon since we use it, we primarily focused
on general use of XML/XSL.
  The Web site itself uses Cocoon 2 - with the sitemap performing the
functions as noted below of associating stylesheets with XML files - but we
didn't start using Cocoon 2 until after we had written the paper. However,
in Cocoon 1 the separation of content/style/logic was still achieved when
properly implemented within the Cocoon 1 framework. So I don't think the
point is incorrect, although I see where it may be a bit misleading or
confusing to someone who is familiar with Cocoon. We can look to clarify
this in the paper by stating that our references are to Cocoon 1 and that
Cocoon 2 handles these things differently and more effectively through its
use of the sitemap. But again, the paper is primarily directed to a general
audience (not Cocoon specific) and not surprisingly, one of the main
questions we'd hear when developing the paper was from Web developers who
were familiar with HTML and JavaScript etc., but not too familiar with XML,
and asked how you "connected" your XML files with your XSL stylesheets. That
basic separation of content from style is still a big mystery to many HTML
users. So that's why we explicitly mention the connection using processing
instructions in the paper.
  Thanks for the comments. We'll try to clear up some of its misleading

Jim Costello
Web Application Developer
Center for Technology in Govenment
(518) 442-3812

-----Original Message-----
From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:37 AM
Cc: Jim Costello
Subject: Re: Link Livesites:

Hello Derek,

yes, that's obviously misleading. But I'm not related to this page.
After the mention on this list last week I only asked them to be listed
on Cocoon's Livesites page and Jim Costello sent me this mail below. I
added the link in the CVS and forwarded this mail, especially because of
the impressive figures.
Now the report: It's the typical Cocoon 1.x handling using processing
instructions. But I don't know if they wrote their own component
handling processing instructions or if the report is outdated or simlpy
wrong. The X-Cocoon header clearly states that they use Cocoon 2.0.4,
but he also wrote (in the mail below) that they still have Cocoon 1.x in
use for a part of their homepage.
I'm cc-ing Jim Costello, so he can read and clarify your objections.



Derek Hohls wrote:

I was browsing the white paper referred to; in
it mentions that XML files are "connected" to XSL files
by placing links to the stylesheets at the top of the XML
files.  It then goes on to say:

"This significantly simplifies content management because it enables you to make changes to only one content file and make no changes to the stylesheets because the content is totally separated from the presentation.

Figure 8 illustrates how these XML/XSL transformations occur within the Cocoon publishing framework. "

This is a little misleading and underplays the true value
added by Cocoon in completely separating content from
presentation - the "connections" happen in the sitemap;
there is no need to specify  stylesheets in your XML files;
as soon as you do this you are implicitly mixing content
and presentation.

If you are able, I think some changes would help
clarify the situation.



System Development
Fon  +49(0)341-979-7419
Fax  +49(0)341-979-7409

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to