On 3/26/06, yuppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm listening, but not everything you say makes sense to me. And I don't
> want to blame anybody for that change. I just want to understand why the
> new five_template is better than the old one. And if it is not better,
> revert the change before the final release.

I'm not sure what "new" means any more. As I remember, I fixed some
problems with it becuase I had fixed them in CMFonFive, and the copy
that was in CMF was old. One was that the CMF template inserted an
empty line first in the page. Thats one problem I remember clearly.

> 1.) Mapping 'style_slot' to 'css_slot' instead of 'style_slot'. You
> agreed in http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2006-March/024221.html
> that this was a bug and I fixed it yesterday.

Yup. No breakage going on, it's simply that the CPS "css_slot" (which
I wrongly assumed was a CMF slot) has been replaced by the new
standard style_slot, and C;FonFive was not updated on this when CPS
was updated on it.

> 2.) Adding two slots 'base' and 'header'. AFAICS these are CMF specific
> slots. If I did get you right you agree that providing CMF specific
> slots is not a good idea and CPS 3.4 / CalZope don't use these slots.

Right, so we can remove them.

--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo     http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management     http://www.cps-project.org/
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to