-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 23, 2008, at 23:27 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> As you already found, the ICMFDublinCore should be supported by both,
>> right?
>
> Except for the fact that no CMF (or AT) content type uses the
> zope.dublinc
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 19:19 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> >> On Sep 23, 2008, at 17:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Are there any objections to making the CMFCore i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 23, 2008, at 19:19 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 17:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived
>>> classes from zope.dublincore, o
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 17:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > Currently CMFCore and zope.dublincore duplicate some of the DC
> > interfaces. zope.dublincore even has an ICMFDublinCore interface
> > explicitly dublicing CMFCore's version.
> >
> > Are there any objecti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 23, 2008, at 18:09 , Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived
>> classes from zope.dublincore, or possibly even using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Currently CMFCore and zope.dublincore duplicate some of the DC
> interfaces. zope.dublincore even has an ICMFDublinCore interface
> explicitly dublicing CMFCore's version.
>
> Are there any objections to making the CMFCore in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 23, 2008, at 17:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Currently CMFCore and zope.dublincore duplicate some of the DC
> interfaces. zope.dublincore even has an ICMFDublinCore interface
> explicitly dublicing CMFCore's version.
>
> Are there any object
Currently CMFCore and zope.dublincore duplicate some of the DC
interfaces. zope.dublincore even has an ICMFDublinCore interface
explicitly dublicing CMFCore's version.
Are there any objections to making the CMFCore interfaces derived
classes from zope.dublincore, or possibly even using those direc
