Ferdinand Soethe wrote: > > David Crossley wrote: > > >> >>I know this has come up before, but I'm not sure which of the info in > >> >>old threads is still relevant today so I'll ask again: > >> > > >> >If you remind us what came up before, then we might be able > >> >to tell you if still relevant. > > DC> Any answer to that bit? > > Sorry, I was not referring to just one bit or one question that had > come up before. > > I'd tried to find information on site.xml and tabs.xml and read my way > through some > longer threads in the archives getting more confused all the time. > > One example is quoted from "Selective PDF"
Where did this next bit of discussion come from? I cannot find it in the past of this thread. Is it related to your current question? I don't know about any problem with "Raw files". --David > >> As for tabs.xml I think it should also be in site.xml > > > > I tend to agree; current placement is just legacy. (oh gosh, another > > thread! ;-) > > > >> Bring site structure to one place, make it simple. > >> > >> Obviate the need for a content space such as xdocs. Let files be anywhere. > >> Forrest should be like a vacuum cleaner with many suction points. Just let > >> Forrest know where files are and "slurp" it will bring them in. > >> Content can therefor reside on any host, be accessed and integrated into > >> the > >> site. > > > > This is already somewhat decided. > > The problem are RAW files (@see the other thread). > > This may be useful for sbdy to remember a discussion that happened > before, but all I can see is (interesting) pieces of > opinions. > > So I figured asking for a current state might be more useful then > quoting from the archives. > > Sorry to not be so vague on this. > > -- > Ferdinand Soethe
