Andreas Hochsteger wrote:
Hi!
Most form examples in the current woody discussions assume, that the forms are
presented in HTML.
Is it (or will it be) possible to support different output formats while
reusing most of the form definition?
I'm interested in the following output formats:
* HTML
On 2/08/2003 8:57 Marc Portier wrote:
but if they all do, then you'll have to make some decissions on smart
management of stylesheets and the like to get most if not everything
from one (at least a limited number of) source-file...
I think it will take some of us actually doing these things
Hi again :-)
just adding some more phylosofical notes on webapp design and
modelling (it is week-end after all, hope you all don't mind me
getting into the meta levels of things)
snip /
as explained my feeling is that woody's model should be as decoupled
from the 'template' as it is from the
Hi,
I'm tinkering around with the CLI, thinking how to add
don't-crawl-this-page support, and have some questions on how cli.xconf
currently works. The following block in cli.xconf has me confused..
| The old behaviour - appends uri to the specified destination
| directory (as specified
Marc Portier wrote:
Andreas Hochsteger wrote:
Hi!
Most form examples in the current woody discussions assume, that the
forms are
presented in HTML.
Is it (or will it be) possible to support different output formats
while reusing most of the form definition?
I'm interested in the following
Marc Portier wrote:
Hi again :-)
just adding some more phylosofical notes on webapp design and
modelling (it is week-end after all, hope you all don't mind me
getting into the meta levels of things)
large-snip/
Nice stuff, Marc. I went through similar thoughts, but through a less
On 2/08/2003 22:21 Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
ProxyPass can't be in .htaccess.
That's what I was already afraid of.
Redirect directives can. But, they'll
see the 'real' URL in the browser.
Sure, and since we try and advocate cool URIs whenever we can, I really
hope we can eventually make proper
