> Exactly.  You've just described the "components" aspect of this idea, which was left 
>out of the
> Paul's original post.  A component is just a tag marked with a special attribute 
>that names it (and
> its path, if it has been saved).  It can contain other components, and can have 
>"slots" -- subtags
> whose contents are not part of the component.  There is also the concept of "modes", 
>which allows
> you to have different versions of a template for different system states (shopping 
>cart empty vs.
> non-empty) that radically affect presentation.

I viewed components and modes as implementation details.  The proposal
just suggested that designers should have reuse across pages.  I viewed
(and still view) components as a good idea, but definately magic that
might or might not fly.  It might tip the cognitive scales too far for
average site designers, especially if there are other areas of magic in
the implementation of the proposal (like implicit templates).

Let's just have the proposal say reuse is good and then figure it out
later.  Same for modes: let's just say the important areas in DTML will
be covered, and find out later whether <dtml-if> and <dtml-in> can be
covered w/out sacrificing the really important parts of the proposal.


Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to