Hi Rok, On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:18 AM, Rok Garbas wrote:
> - second idea - since we share similar vision - would be to start > factoring out things from plone.(app|content|skins) into ``plumi.video``. > > > currently I'm more leaning on the second one, but I would still like > your input on it. I think best would be to write short proposal what to > include into ``plumi.video`` to the list and then you comment on it. That's exactly what we've been thinking of doing: Replace plumi.content with plumi.video and plumi.callout, since the callouts are a requirement specific to engagemedia.org and most other Plumi users don't really need them. It's important however not to break backward compatibility and there are a few of open questions: * Should we keep the video schema as it is? Or maybe revise & simplify it? In the current video add/edit form there are lots of fields in the form, some of which are required, making the upload form rather unfriendly to users. We've been thinking of redesigning the form and the fields to make it look a bit more like youtube/vimeo/blip.tv where the user first uploads the video file and after or during the upload she can fill in any available metadata. * Should we keep using Archetypes for the new plumi.video content type, or maybe migrate to Dexterity? Or maybe forget about a having video content type and instead use schemaextender to extend the standard File type when a video file is uploaded. What do you think yourself? I tend to think that Dexterity is better suited so that site admins can extend the schema through the web, but OTOH it may break a lot of the existing functionality. Cheers, Dimitris _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.plumi.org/listinfo/discuss
