Sorry for the long delay in replying. We've been using widget-specific JS and CSS for some time now and I like our approach. It's quite different from the proposal.
We're using the same pattern used by forms/widgets -- i.e. the PT is responsible for explicitly including HTML fragments provided by the view. As a point of reference, here's a simple example of including widgets: <tal:block repeat="widget view/widgets"> <label tal:content="widget/label">Name</label> <input type="text" tal:replace="widget" /> </tal:block> The analog for including header support (i.e. JS and CSS) is: <head> <tal:block repeat="content view/headContent"> <tal:block content="content" /> </tal:block> </head> This places the burden of managing unique lists of 'head content' with the view. I see this as an extension of the widget-management framework. I would not personally opt for the proposal because it feels a bit magical -- I think it's too indirect. So, here's my argument in brief: Since widgets are driving the requirements of a consolidated "resource" list in the HTML head, the solution should extend the existing widget pattern. Yes, this imposes more overhead on the PT and the view, but the upside (IMO) is that the scheme is more transparent. -- Garrett On , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've added a proposal for Zope 3.2. Read at > http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitectu > re/ResourceLibrary. > > WARNING: zope.org exhibiting some serious caching > strangeness, so please > comment on the list instead of the wiki. _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com