Am 09.07.2013, 09:33 Uhr, schrieb yuppie <y.2...@wcm-solutions.de>:
Thanks for your feedback. You didn't reply to the list, so I just reply
to you. Feel free to bring this back to the list.
It was just me being stupid and confused by another list that defaults to
reply to user - I'm on several which are configured differently and it's
all too much for my little brain!
Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 05.07.2013, 10:48 Uhr, schrieb yuppie <y.2...@wcm-solutions.de>:
- rename '@@view.html' to '@@view', '@@properties.html' to
'@@properties' and so on. This allows to remove some method aliases.
Call me a stick in the mud but I always like to associate a mime type
with a file extension.
I know what you mean, using '@@view.html' and '@@properties.html' in CMF
was my idea. But meanwhile I think differently:
Paths like "site/foo.pdf/edit.html" look strange. File extension are
useful if you want to save files to a file system that has no other way
to keep track of the mime type. But you don't want to save views that
have a visible name. You want to save the object using the default view
and the name of the default view is invisible. So the object needs a
file extension, not the view.
I don't think I'm entirely convinced about path logic. I guess any of
these conventions are dependent upon what you're doing. Fortunately,
traversal means that we generally don't need to worry too much about the
name we use and extensions in view names are useful only in a minority of
cases, such as, say, .ics for events. I just like the explicitness. OTOH I
also realise that this is somewhat historical - extensions are good way of
distinguishing between views and TTW stuff when entering URLs directly,
like developers but not users do.
And: These names are already hidden behind aliases, for type specific
views they are just used internally.
This is probably the biggest reason so no more objections from me.
Clark Consulting & Research
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests