On Thu, 2006-20-04 at 18:56 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> I've long been thinking about how to make <browser:page /> simpler and
> less magical. Some radical ideas weren't received well and I couldn't
> convince even myself 100% that they were the way to go. Other
> brainstormings were dead ends.
> I therefore call this proposal a compromise. It simplifies, but it
> shouldn't annoy (Tres...). Note that I'm specifically only addressing
> <browser:page />, not <browser:view />; nor am I coming up with a
> framework for dealing with forms and their handlers (Jeff...).
> 'Nuff said. Your turn :)
I have a few naive comments/questions. Could you quickly explain in 2
lines or less what the difference between <browser:page> and
To be frank, I've only ever used <browser:page> and its done what I
wanted quite nicely from having class-less templates, and template-less
classes, and classes+templates. The magic that you seem to describe is
an implementation detail that I could care less about as a user of the
functionality (perhaps if I were more involved with the coder underneath
I would care more).
So... having said all that, I have to say I don't see much benefit in
what your RFC suggests but rather just a little added complication.
AdaptiveWave - Content Management as a Service
Content Management Made Simple
Zope3-dev mailing list