Conal Tuohy dijo: > Stefano wrote: >> The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap >> iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster >> of it via XSLT) >> >> And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting >> inside the pipelines (well, actions are kinda like scripting >> aren't they) > > It's also potentially useful for validation. > > Another thing I like about XML sitemaps is that you can load them in a > browser and use + and - buttons to reveal only the sections you want. > > The fact that XML is a common syntax means that there will always be new > things you can with it. > > Personally, I like it as XML. :-)
I agree. The idea I buyed from XML was that we don't need to add new parsers, easily transformations using XSLT, etc. and that is a point we will lose. You know that I like Groovy. and I thought about that long time ago, but I was no brave enough to propose a Groovy syntax because the problems parsing the Groovy code for later purposes. Note, I am not droping the idea. I think we need to see closer to the pros and cons about a Groovy sitemap syntax. Another solution can be to allow more syntax here: XML, Groovy, java, [fill here]. The question is if this is not again a balkanization. Long time ago we agreed to avoid that for forms frameworks. Can we agree the same for sitemap syntax? I still have the idea that we need an IDE for Cocoon and using non-XML syntax will be harder to parse. Just think what if we need to build an non-XML reader to interpret the sitemap. With an XML syntax it is a very easy task. Perhaps Sylvain call tell us more about this since they are developing a tool for Cocoon. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
