Joern Nettingsmeier schrieb: > Andreas Hartmann wrote: >> Jörn Nettingsmeier schrieb: >>> hi everyone! >>> >>> grepping after unrelated issues, i found out that we seem to offer both >>> a site: protocol as documented in >>> http://lenya.apache.org/docs/2_0_x/reference/protocols/site.html >>> and the new lenya-document: protocol (not currently documented afaict, >>> but it's the one with the nifty syntax that allows arbitrary parts to be >>> left out). >>> >>> imho lenya-document: is a complete superset of site:'s features and >>> vastly superior. can we get rid of site: before we let it loose on the >>> world and have to support it forever? or are there conceivable cases >>> where site: cannot be readily replaced by lenya-document: ? >> >> ATM they are orthogonal. lenya-document: handles UUIDs, site: handles >> paths in the site structure. Neither addresses the behaviour of the >> other one. I'd like to keep them separated so that it is always clear >> what one is dealing with - what do the others think? > > ah, ok. that was not clear to me. in that case, we should certainly > retain both. > am i being thick or is that fact a little obscure? > btw, we don't currently have prototol documentation on lenya-document: > iiuc (at least not in the obvious place).
http://lenya.apache.org/docs/2_0_x/reference/link-management.html#Syntax+for+Internal+Links We should probably add a link from the "Protocols" section to this page. > i don't have a toolchain in > place to create forrest pages... if i created a draft page, could you > test it and maybe fix it up a little? Sure, no problem. Feel free to take a look at the existing page and apply your changes. TIA! -- Andreas -- Andreas Hartmann, CTO BeCompany GmbH http://www.becompany.ch --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
