Seb Bacon wrote:
On 11/30/05, Paul Everitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Still, I'm hoping that my small, 3-line proposal doesn't get changed
into a "let's replace templating systems" discussion. :^) I'm trying to
find the smallest necessary part to cover the maximum interest.
Again to the CMF community: independent of this proposed solution, is
this corporate ID a problem worth supporting investigation?
Personally I am very much in favour of a small change that makes it
more likely that people will experiment with using XSLT or any other
system they like.
On the other hand, in our work the design part of the process never
fits into a workflow like this. We don't ever need to apply a global
theme to a core set of templates; rather, the design of entire
templates and layouts changes between clients. So FWIW the specific
problem as expressed isn't one we need to solve.
Right, but I think parts of the motivation are similar. You need a new
look-and-feel for each client. The person doing that look-and-feel
(perhaps the client, if they already have a look-and-feel) need their
work to be part of the processing.
Does this happen by:
1) Asking them and the site scripters to share the same artifact?
(Perhaps in your case the two roles conflate into the same person.)
2) Segregating the site scripting into one part and the look-and-feel
into another part.
In short, I strongly agree with every one of your numbered list items
except "1) Don't make corporate ID people learn anything new" - I'm
not sure I have ever met any corporate ID people. But perhaps that's
The motivation I described comes from a fair number of CMS consulting
deployments in a different business model than yours, so that's possible.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests