Paul Bolger wrote:
Not quite sure why this is off in a different thread, but: (continuing
the 'vague issues with Forrest use' discussion)
Because this is no longer Vague - you have made a very concrete
suggestion. The change of subject makes it much easier to read the
archives where subject is all that is initially seen when searching.
if this has already
been implemented isn't there a case for making the
'#project.menu-scheme=directories' the default, and letting those who
need extra flexibilty choose the other option if they need it?
Does it actually work the way David suggestd? Seems daft that we don't know!
I've read the documentation on linking and I admit I'm yet to be
convinced why putting an extra layer of translation into links is
advantageous.
Here are a couple of advantages (there are others I am sure):
You have a site with 1000 documents. One of them is in directory A and
appears in the site navigation structure in a corresponding place.
However, you eventually realise that the document would be more
appropriate in a different part of the navigation structure.
Without site.xml you would have to move the file, but now you have
broken all the internal links to the original file. Using site.xml you
simply move it in the navigation structure, but leave it where it is in
the directory structure.
---
You have a file that you want to appear twice in the navigation
structure. Without site.xml you need to duplicate the content and manage
two identical files.
---
Imagine a scenario in which you have 100 files in subdirectories. The
first 50 are user manuals, the second 50 are developer manuals. The dev
documents reference the user documents, but not the other way around.
You want to create two sites, one for users (user docs only), one for
devs (both sets of docs).
Without site.xml how do you do it?
---
Hope these few examples help illustrate some of the power uses of
site.xml (doesn't preclude a simple default setting as you describe though).
Ross
