Am 13.10.2010, 18:09 Uhr, schrieb Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com>:
> I'm not sure what you are referring to. The 'ursa' extension profile
> adds an 'ursa' skin which inserts the 'ursine' layer before the
> "standard" ones, exactly as 'absolut' does. That layer has two purposes:
> - - Use the 'ursine_globals' view to generate top-level names .
> - - Provide *no* layout at all, beyond easy-to-manipulate semantic
> markup for the menus and view content.
Sorry, it was the not wiring up the Ursa skin as default which threw me.
> This second case is the one which does not overlap with the 'absolut'
> skin, and is the reason I want to keep it: any layout-oriented markup
> *at all* is just something which makes it harder to retheme a site under
>> If you do set it to
>> default you get errors from zpt_generic/index_html_template because
>> object_title and object_description are missing.
> I don't know what you mean here: the site renders just fine for me with
> 'ursa' set ast the default skin.
I added the definitions to the main_template so that a default folder view
> There is no 'Bare' skin in my trunk site at all.
This 'Bare' is in the description when selecting the extension profile:
"CMF 'Bare' skin Provide skin w/ stripped-down main template."
> Can we please quit arguing about this, and leave the 'ursa' extension
> profile / 'ursine' layer in place?
I wasn't really arguing and I am leaving them alone!
Clark Consulting & Research
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests