Am 06.07.98 schrieb apharris # burrito.onshore.com ... Moin Adam!
APH> Marcus, I have a question about the DDH system. As I understood our APH> last discussion of this issue, the DDH tree was centrally maintained, Yes. APH> which means that it's not possible for doc providers to create new APH> nodes in the tree. No, Marcus and me have agreed that the package maintainer can add new dirs and this is very important. A good example is my doc-html-w3 package. Instead of putting all documents in /web, I#ve created a subdir /web/w3. We have agreed that dirs should be part of DDH, if more than one package uses this directory. APH> However, we did see that it might be nice to have 'application' APH> groups, which are leaf nodes (meaning can't have child nodes) on the APH> tree. However, my current Metadata proposal doesn't accomodate this APH> at all. Unless we could iterpret the top level of my relative URLs APH> (URNs) as an application group. ? APH> 1) if the file is located in the doc dir of the package <pkg>, i.e., APH> /usr/share/doc/<pkg>/<remaining-path>, and <pkg> is the package APH> that *supplies* the resource, then it is appropriate to use a APH> relative URL formulated as "<pkg>/<path>", where <pkg> is the APH> package name, and where <path> is the location of the document on APH> the file system relative to /usr/share/doc/<pkg> or /usr/doc/<pkg>, APH> in that order No. That#s a bad idea, again. I can#t understand your problems with my solutions. APH> Is this enough functionality? Again, I don#t like this strange solutions. cu, Marco -- Uni: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fido: 2:240/5202.15 Mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
