P� 18. jan. 2005 kl. 18.14 skrev Ross Gardler:
Our solution is to import content from a repository.This is also what we do.
With one very important difference, for us, Forrest does it at runtime. There is no need for the content developers to import the docs, this is very important for us as most of our content developers are not technically aware, using a word processor is about their limit.
Ok.
I'll have to look into IMSManifest. Presently we (or I, that is:-) would like to go for the XInclude solution, to get our site up and running AFAP. That does not preclude that we also look into other solutions that would also take care of repository checkouts/updates.
Absolutely, you need to get things working for your project (and I will apply your patch since it does not affect other aspects of Forrest).
Thanks! :-)
I just thought that we have an amount of overlap between our two use cases and wanted to explore that.
I agree there is overlap, and for a more solid long-term solution, IMSManifest does definitely look interesting, cf. next paragraph.
I suppose the real question I should be asking you is "would automatic management of included documents be a benefit in your case?"
Definitely.
One of our concerns would be i18n - we can only live with a solution that integrates well with the i18n work done (and planned) in Forrest.
Well I have not done any work with i18n, but I see no reason why our own approach should br3eak this functionality since everything is converted to a site.xml and tabs.xml file and then handled internally by Forrest in exactly the same way.
Thanks for the clarification on IMSManifest's relation to site.xml and tabs.xml
Sjur
