Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
Michael Wechner wrote:
Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
Michael Wechner wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
agreed. but imnsho it does not warrant a special mechanism comprised
of 2 stylesheets, an undocumented ad-hoc xml namespace and number of
pipelines in the global sitemap. the version information will be
moved to publication.xconf.
check the archives and you will see that we actually agreed to such a
merge quite some time ago ;-)
good to know. must've missed that one.
right. my current approach provides a generic listing of the
publication's configuration plus the usual links to docs and login -
i.e. stuff that is of interest to admins and editors.
+1 to merge, but merge the whole structure.
the whole structure cannot be merged iiuc. publication.xconf is a
Configurable data file, and the Configurable interface supports only
a subset of XML - notably, mixed content is not supported, which
would be natural for a "readme" section.
therefore my current approach is to allow only simple fields in
publication.xconf.
i'm also thinking of providing a global "readme.xml" that is called
via fallback. it can be used by developers to inform users about
important changes and required tweaks, and publications could
override it to add their own information.
I don't think that makes sense. This is what namespaces are good for.
??? i don't understand. can you clarify?
I don't understand why you want to keep this information separate? Maybe
you need to give an example resp. what you think how publication.xconf
and readme.xml should look like
Btw, you might also want to consider RDF for this.
look, can we agree that lenya has this little problem of
over-engineering on one side vs. a minuscule developer community and
very little real-life testing on the other side?
i think RDF of all things is not going to change that for the better.
I wouldn't consider RDF as over-engineering, but just consider it as a
suggestion.
point taken. i took it to mean "if someone objects, please speak up."
i think it's ok to use the phrase for changes that the poster does not
think are subject to much debate. if it turns out there is
disagreement, commits can always be reverted.
well, it can be very hard to revert changes.
Cheers
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Michael Wechner
Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+41 44 272 91 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
