On 6/6/06, Michael Wechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> I still think that extensions should be orthogonal to resource types.
> The extension belongs to the actual document and should be provided
> when the document is created.
>
> - "image" resources can have different extensions
> - the ".xml" or ".txt" extensions can be used by different resource types
>
> I don't see a relation between extensions and resource types.
agreed, but the resource type implementation should be able to
initialize a NodeImplementation which
can handle extensions.
>
> The resource type's concern is how documents are handled.
> The document's concern is how it is named.
In Lenya1.3, extensions are maintained at the Revision level.
Resource: UNID="0160", Title="websitetitle", type="file"
Translation: language="en", liveRevision="20060602075920"
Revision: UNID="20060602075920", extension="gif"
"websitetitle.gif" would display the correct file.
The expectation is the link (in documents and XSL) will be stored as
something like <LINK UNID="0160" TAG="img"/> so Lenya can replace it
with the appropriate anchor or img tag for display. That allows the
graphic Resource to be changed to "websitetitle.png" or
"websitetitle.jpg" without changing any documents or XSL.
solprovider
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
