<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE project [
<!ENTITY commons-nav SYSTEM "../../commons-build/incl_nav.xml">
]>
<project name="Math">
<title>Math</title>
<organizationLogo href="/images/jakarta-logo-blue.gif">
Jakarta
</organizationLogo>
<body>
...&commons-nav; </body> </project>
I think that incl_nav.xml and navigation.vm are basically the same and we should remove one of them.
Betwixt and various others are doing the same similar strategy using a different set of files:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE org.apache.commons.menus SYSTEM '../../xdocs/stylesheets/menus/org-apache-commons-menus.dtd'>
<project name="Betwixt">
<title>Betwixt</title>
<organizationLogo href="/images/jakarta-logo-blue.gif">Jakarta</organizationLogo>
<body>
<links>
<item name="Jakarta Commons"
href="http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/"/>
</links>
&about-menu;
...
&information-menu;
&community-menu;
&translations-menu;</body> </project>
This should seriously be consolidated into "one" and only "one" approach for generating navigation across the sites.
I think the method should be a transparent as possible for the underlying sites as well, with having multiple includes from the dtd in the project navigation.xml level, theres too much room for individual projects to manipulate what the commons navigation looks like, it should look the same for all projects, with this in mind I think there should be only one include, like is currently being done with the incl_navi.xml approach. Plus the whole dtd thing is somewhat of an overkill for a simple entity include.
2cents, Mark
Henri Yandell wrote:
Heh. Looks like Dirk created/moved the menus.dtd the other day.
Any reason why we should be using menus.dtd Dirk?
Betwixt, Pool, Launcher and DBCP are using it.
Hen
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
As I started looking at updating some of the websites, I realised that we have two competing approaches: - incl_nav.xml - menus.dtd
I have been updating everything to use the former, but I suspect others may be updating towards the latter. Have we agreed on which to use? If so, can we mark the other as deprecated in the file ;-)
Stephen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Mark Diggory Software Developer Harvard MIT Data Center http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
