OK I'm going to stop trying to swim against the flow. Niall
On 3/16/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > Another problem is the new "commons" menus doesn't work with distros > > that include their site with the docs - I just checked commons logging > > and none of the commons entries work - it needs to be changed to > > absolute urls, rather than relative. > I chose relative URLs deliberatley to avoid the external links in the > commons menu section. However, you are correct and these have to be > absolute. > > I have adjusted the project.css to remove the external link image from > all links in the commons menu div to get around this change. > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > I have implemented an alternative approach in Validator that uses an > > svn:external to pull in the commons-build. > > > > I set up a new "shared-build" directory in commons-build and created > > an svn:external to pull in that directory. Anything that gets dropped > > in "shared-build" will be automatically pulled into Validator (or any > > other component that uses it) via the svn:external. > > > > This has the benefit of removing commons-build, but not introducing > > the requirement to be online to build or view the docs properly. > > This fails in three ways for me: > 1) Eclispe doesn't pick up the svn:external and use it. Thus validator > won't site build from an svn checkout in the most popular IDE. > > 2) The dtd is still referenced by a relative path. This causes maven > issues and thus complicates our lives. > > 3) This setup requires a rebuild for every ApacheCon type event. As can > be seen from the number of commons sites which still reference ApacheCon > 2005, this mechanism just doesn't scale/work. Referencing a single > central css file handles this scenario. > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > The problem with this approach [online files] is that as well > > as requiring an online > > connection to build components, it also requires a online connection > > to view the docs properly. <snip> > What proportion of people view the site offline? Its got to be fairly > small. And the only thing they'll see is that the site style changes a > little. IMHO thats not a big deal. > > What proportion of people need to build the site offline? A tiny number. > Is it worth the extra hassle to deal with it? (And in fact all they have > to do is to remove the dtd and entity references from navigation .xml) > > Stephen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
