> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Tonico Strasser
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:10 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: The browser:page compromise
> Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
> > I also think it makes it hard to understand. In response to this
> > proposal, several people have asked me "By the way, what's the
> > difference between <browser:page /> and <browser:view />
> anyhoo?" That
> > alone has proven my point that the current system makes it
> > incomprehensible of what's going on behind the scenes.
> The name "browser" for a namespace sux IMHO ;)
The idea of a namspace called browser is the following:
We use the namespace browser for *presentations* (the earlier
name for pages) which depends on the IBrowserRequest.
This is also reflected in the package structure like:
For other request types like FTPRequest, XMLRPC or JSON
etc we use:
Perhaps this is to technical and will confuse people which don't
know the base concepts of request type interfaces. But since no
tehchnical peple have no chance to develope with z3 I think
this naming is OK.
> How is a browser defined in Zope 3 and how are these names
> related to it?
All of this directive are based on the IBrowserRequest.
Other requests like FTPRequest don't have a menu layer etc.
The exception zope:view doesn't use a implicit request this
is the reason why the zope:view is also existent next to
the browser:view. This means the zope:view directive can be
used together with a different request then IBrowserRequest.
> What is a page? Is a dynamic stylesheet or a dynamic
> mime_type? Should a page do content negotiation?
More or less all of this is a adapter called on a
context and request providing a interface and a optional
name producing a response ;-) Remember page is a replacement
for the earlier name *presentation" which was a little bit
a to long naming.
> Create a new clean namespace and call it user_interface (or ui)! :)
I think a name like ui doesn't reflect the request type and will
be a bad idea for register *presentations* for json which are registred
like <jsonrpc:view ... /> right now.
But if you like to use <ui:page /> etc, you can do this by simply
setting the namspace to:
And then use <ui:page .... />
btw, I whould like to use only one directive called
*zope* for all directives. The directive *browser*
is not really needed except for let us use
zope:view and browser:view ;-)
> Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev mailing list