Re: [docs]: Who we are
Steven Noels wrote: > > > > > Know what? Sometimes he wonders why he bothers keeping > himself >subscribed to this mail list: you people do an incredible >job even without his guidance ;-) > > > > See! Ah, I was almost ready to start attacking the Cocoon Blocks problem... but :-Pr :) -- Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [docs]: Who we are
On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 09:17 AM, Steven Noels wrote: > I upgraded the entire xml.apache.org *main* site yesterday evening to > the new doc-v11.dtd and put it inside Forrest as a test case. And I am incredibly grateful for this effort. > These > documents were *ugly*, while Cocoon's xdocs seem structurally pretty > well shaped up to me (to easily automate this transformation process). > So I assume migrating to doc-v11 will not be too much of a problem for > the Cocoon project. I don't think so either. Still, Carsten has time and the interest to write this doc now. If transformation will indeed be quite automated, we can update his work later. Clearly I'm saying this, fully realizing this approach may shift additional work on my shoulders when we transform *all* docs. Still, my priority is content. > The only outstanding issues I have with doc-v11 is hyperlinks, the title > element/attribute discussion and some personal feelings about the poor > table markup. Both are currently under discussion within the Forrest > group, one has been raised as a vote, so we'll get somewhere sooner than > later. > > I posted a vote on this subject some weeks ago > (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10215429973&r=1&w=2), and was > pretty much amazed with the amount of responses I received :-( Understanding the implications of an issue aren't always evident when you're not dealing directly with the matter. I think everyone was trusting your judgment, which I continue to do. > Aren't we a bit too conservative on transitioning Cocoon to Forrest? I'm ready to start, but in a partial way. FAQs and How-Tos, as recently proposed on Forrest. I'm not ready *yet* to deal with all docs, like the one Carsten is proposing. I'll start testing this approach, as you are doing. Diana - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
Carsten & Diana, > In the long term a specific DTD might make sense, but I totally agree > with Diana that now deciding for a DTD delays us too much. Let's use > the usual DTD (and I can start right now...) and if we want we can > later on switch to a specific one if everything is in place. I upgraded the entire xml.apache.org *main* site yesterday evening to the new doc-v11.dtd and put it inside Forrest as a test case. These documents were *ugly*, while Cocoon's xdocs seem structurally pretty well shaped up to me (to easily automate this transformation process). So I assume migrating to doc-v11 will not be too much of a problem for the Cocoon project. The only outstanding issues I have with doc-v11 is hyperlinks, the title element/attribute discussion and some personal feelings about the poor table markup. Both are currently under discussion within the Forrest group, one has been raised as a vote, so we'll get somewhere sooner than later. I posted a vote on this subject some weeks ago (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10215429973&r=1&w=2), and was pretty much amazed with the amount of responses I received :-( Aren't we a bit too conservative on transitioning Cocoon to Forrest? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [docs]: Who we are
agreed. - Original Message - From: "Diana Shannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:41 AM Subject: Re: [docs]: Who we are > > On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 07:35 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > Hi Team, > > > > I propose that we split up the rather long list of committers in the > > hall of fame document into "active committers" and "Emeritus Committers" > > like many other projects (e.g. Axis or Struts) do. > > > In addition we could add a short bio/note from each committer as well > > or at least a link to a page containing this. > > > > What do you think? > > I think it's an excellent idea. > > Diana > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
> From: Steven Noels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > I think we should simply use the usual dtd. It available, > can be used > > immediatly and offers all possibilites we need. > > I'm touchy about the validation thing AND the commonalities between > other projects: we need a common format & presentation across all > xml.apache.org projects, and I believe having a specific DTD for these > purposes can help. See > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102327343231312&w=2 for > Konstantin contradicting himself on that ;-) It should my English that makes me so contradictory ;) To make it clear I *am* for using semantical markups in the way that Steven proposed. We've already similar things when I've created a content for the front-page: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=101605719921655&w=2 And I am also agree that we should avoid lot of specific formats and try to reuse as much as possible without losing semantics. Konstantin. > > > And what about the active developers and emeritus > committers? I still > > believe a simple , > > is sufficient. > > Have you seen the elements? You could have as many > categories > of contributors as you want, and you're free to name them to your > personal liking. > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
Steven Noels wrote: > > > From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > I think we should simply use the usual dtd. It available, can be used > > immediatly and offers all possibilites we need. > > I'm touchy about the validation thing AND the commonalities between > other projects: we need a common format & presentation across all > xml.apache.org projects, and I believe having a specific DTD for these > purposes can help. See > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102327343231312&w=2 for > Konstantin contradicting himself on that ;-) In the long term a specific DTD might make sense, but I totally agree with Diana that now deciding for a DTD delays us too much. Let's use the usual DTD (and I can start right now...) and if we want we can later on switch to a specific one if everything is in place. > > > And what about the active developers and emeritus committers? I still > > believe a simple , > > is sufficient. > > Have you seen the elements? You could have as many categories > of contributors as you want, and you're free to name them to your > personal liking. > Ah, no, didn't see that (sorry, but I'm currently working with the left eye and watching soccer with the right one...) Carsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [docs]: Who we are
On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 08:44 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >> >>> Though, if having so many formats is not contradictory to the >>> Forrest vision >>> then I am +1 for it. >> >> We could do a simple document consisting of a table, of course. >> Having a >> specific DTD however ensures we have a common information structure >> across all XML Apache sub-projects, which is part of the Forrest >> vision. >> > I think we should simply use the usual dtd. It available, can be used > immediatly and offers all possibilites we need. +1 Let's keep our eyes on the prize -- CONTENT. Steven, the problem being: all new dtds are supposed to work with document-v11. Doesn't that unnecessarily delay these kinds of documentation efforts? As you know, I'm struggling with similar issues with other dtds. I don't want to do *anything* to delay Forrest adoption, but we also need docs... Diana - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
> From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > I think we should simply use the usual dtd. It available, can be used > immediatly and offers all possibilites we need. I'm touchy about the validation thing AND the commonalities between other projects: we need a common format & presentation across all xml.apache.org projects, and I believe having a specific DTD for these purposes can help. See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102327343231312&w=2 for Konstantin contradicting himself on that ;-) > And what about the active developers and emeritus committers? I still > believe a simple , > is sufficient. Have you seen the elements? You could have as many categories of contributors as you want, and you're free to name them to your personal liking. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
> From: Steven Noels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Not sure about the text, but the structure is Ok. ;) > > Only I would change 'contributors' to 'developers'. (Btw, see > > change.xml - > > it already contains the list of developers). > > by no means, it has been talked about on several apache lists lately > that non-developers can also be contributors, and perhaps even > committers. I would stick with , since we would > be able to > have a , title="Cocoon > Documentation Project">, etc... Ok. Konstantin P.S. Srange... Now I can post messages using a non-subscribed address... > > Regards, > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
> Not sure about the text, but the structure is Ok. ;) > Only I would change 'contributors' to 'developers'. (Btw, see > change.xml - > it already contains the list of developers). by no means, it has been talked about on several apache lists lately that non-developers can also be contributors, and perhaps even committers. I would stick with , since we would be able to have a , , etc... Regards, - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
Steven Noels wrote: > > > You're absolutely right, we should be careful not to create *too* many > different DTD's. Furthermore, a Cocoon pipeline has no access to the DTD > declaration so it can't modify processing flow depending of the doctype > of a document. > > > Though, if having so many formats is not contradictory to the > > Forrest vision > > then I am +1 for it. > > We could do a simple document consisting of a table, of course. Having a > specific DTD however ensures we have a common information structure > across all XML Apache sub-projects, which is part of the Forrest vision. > I think we should simply use the usual dtd. It available, can be used immediatly and offers all possibilites we need. > > > validating documents similar to this: > > >PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Project Contributors V1.0" "contrib-v10.dtd"> > > > > > > Carsten is release manager for Cocoon2, and tries to avoid >cutting his hands while doing so. :) - good joke! > > > > > > > > Know what? Sometimes he wonders why he bothers keeping > himself >subscribed to this mail list: you people do an incredible >job even without his guidance ;-) > > > > > > Would this make sense? And what about the active developers and emeritus committers? I still believe a simple , is sufficient. Carsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
> From: Steven Noels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > From: Piroumian Konstantin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > I propose that we split up the rather long list of > > > committers in the > > > > > hall of fame document into "active committers" and > > > > "Emeritus Committers" > > > > > like many other projects (e.g. Axis or Struts) do. > > > > > > > > > In addition we could add a short bio/note from each > > > > committer as well > > > > > or at least a link to a page containing this. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > I think it's an excellent idea. > > > > > > Can we (Forrest) make a DTD for it? > > > > Isn't it too specific thing to have a special DTD for it? Why > > not reuse > > document DTD? If we create a DTD for the 'Who we are', then > > we definitely > > will need another DTD for the 'xml.apache.org' front-page > > description, > > the new xml.apache.org frontpage should not be too dependent on a > manually authored XML document, but be the aggregation of a lot of > information snippets from all the various projects. In any case, the > frontpage will be special, i.e. perhaps we would need to create a > separate DTD for it, too. > > > a > > third one for 'Project samples', etc. > > You're absolutely right, we should be careful not to create *too* many > different DTD's. Furthermore, a Cocoon pipeline has no access > to the DTD > declaration so it can't modify processing flow depending of > the doctype > of a document. It was discussed and there were proposed several solutions to this. But is that really needed? We can simple setup separate pipelines for different types of documents. > > > Though, if having so many formats is not contradictory to the > > Forrest vision > > then I am +1 for it. > > We could do a simple document consisting of a table, of > course. Having a > specific DTD however ensures we have a common information structure > across all XML Apache sub-projects, which is part of the > Forrest vision. > > In terms of a DTD, I would go for something in the lines of: > > > "-//APACHE//ENTITIES Documentation V1.1//EN" > "document-v11.mod"> > %document; > > > %title.att;> > > > > > > > > > > > validating documents similar to this: > > >PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Project Contributors V1.0" "contrib-v10.dtd"> > > > > > > Carsten is release manager for Cocoon2, and tries to avoid >cutting his hands while doing so. > > > > > > > > Know what? Sometimes he wonders why he bothers keeping > himself >subscribed to this mail list: you people do an incredible >job even without his guidance ;-) > > > > > > Would this make sense? Not sure about the text, but the structure is Ok. ;) Only I would change 'contributors' to 'developers'. (Btw, see change.xml - it already contains the list of developers). Konstantin > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
> From: Piroumian Konstantin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > I propose that we split up the rather long list of > > committers in the > > > > hall of fame document into "active committers" and > > > "Emeritus Committers" > > > > like many other projects (e.g. Axis or Struts) do. > > > > > > > In addition we could add a short bio/note from each > > > committer as well > > > > or at least a link to a page containing this. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > I think it's an excellent idea. > > > > Can we (Forrest) make a DTD for it? > > Isn't it too specific thing to have a special DTD for it? Why > not reuse > document DTD? If we create a DTD for the 'Who we are', then > we definitely > will need another DTD for the 'xml.apache.org' front-page > description, the new xml.apache.org frontpage should not be too dependent on a manually authored XML document, but be the aggregation of a lot of information snippets from all the various projects. In any case, the frontpage will be special, i.e. perhaps we would need to create a separate DTD for it, too. > a > third one for 'Project samples', etc. You're absolutely right, we should be careful not to create *too* many different DTD's. Furthermore, a Cocoon pipeline has no access to the DTD declaration so it can't modify processing flow depending of the doctype of a document. > Though, if having so many formats is not contradictory to the > Forrest vision > then I am +1 for it. We could do a simple document consisting of a table, of course. Having a specific DTD however ensures we have a common information structure across all XML Apache sub-projects, which is part of the Forrest vision. In terms of a DTD, I would go for something in the lines of: %document; validating documents similar to this: Carsten is release manager for Cocoon2, and tries to avoid cutting his hands while doing so. Know what? Sometimes he wonders why he bothers keeping himself subscribed to this mail list: you people do an incredible job even without his guidance ;-) Would this make sense? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [docs]: Who we are
From: "Steven Noels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: Diana Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 07:35 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > I propose that we split up the rather long list of committers in the > > > hall of fame document into "active committers" and > > "Emeritus Committers" > > > like many other projects (e.g. Axis or Struts) do. > > > > > In addition we could add a short bio/note from each > > committer as well > > > or at least a link to a page containing this. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > I think it's an excellent idea. > > Can we (Forrest) make a DTD for it? Avalon is using Docbook DTD for it AFAIK. http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-avalon/src/xdocs/authors/stefano.x ml?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup Since we (Avalon) will probably be moving to Forrest DTD, a DTD of this kind is needed. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [docs]: Who we are
On Wednesday 05 June 2002 07:35 am, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > I propose that we split up the rather long list of committers in the > hall of fame document into "active committers" and "Emeritus Committers" > like many other projects (e.g. Axis or Struts) do. > > In addition we could add a short bio/note from each committer as well > or at least a link to a page containing this. > > What do you think? +1, and pictures too! -pete -- peter royal -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docs]: Who we are
> From: Diana Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 07:35 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > Hi Team, > > > > I propose that we split up the rather long list of committers in the > > hall of fame document into "active committers" and > "Emeritus Committers" > > like many other projects (e.g. Axis or Struts) do. > > > In addition we could add a short bio/note from each > committer as well > > or at least a link to a page containing this. > > > > What do you think? > > I think it's an excellent idea. Can we (Forrest) make a DTD for it? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [docs]: Who we are
On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 07:35 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Hi Team, > > I propose that we split up the rather long list of committers in the > hall of fame document into "active committers" and "Emeritus Committers" > like many other projects (e.g. Axis or Struts) do. > In addition we could add a short bio/note from each committer as well > or at least a link to a page containing this. > > What do you think? I think it's an excellent idea. Diana - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
