On Thu, 2005-02-06 at 15:27 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: > Pedro I. Sanchez wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-02-06 at 10:34 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: > > ... > > >>><skinlabels name="pelt"> > >>> <keyword name="lastPublished" value="???????"/> > >>> <keyword name="copyright" value="???????"/> > >>></skinlabels> > >> > >>I don't see the value in this. I would imagine that regardless of what > >>skin you are using you would want the same values to appear in the > >>output site. > >> > > > > Skins will have different set of labels. "copyright" might be in all of > > them but "lastPublished" probably not. Hence the need to differentiate > > by skin name. > > True. But what is the advantage of doing it this way over the other > proposal (define by language). I see a disadvantage, that is it requires > lots of duplication if we want multiple languages, whereas splitting by > language only results in the odd unused element for occasional skins/views. > You say right, "If we want multiple languages". But in the current setting of supporting a single language, even if it is not English, then the skin-based approach could make sense. And as I said before, uni-lingual web sites are by far more common than multi-lingual ones.
But I have no problem with the i18n-based approach as long as I can manually specify the target language. I'm just trying to avoid having to rely on the i18n framework to get a solution going. I don't have the insight into the development effort that this implies since I am new to Forrest. But certainly, if this would mean a duplication of work then it is a bad suggestion. > Am I missing something about the use case here? Not at all. My motivation for the skin-based suggestion is just to make it available without having to plugin into the i18n stuff which is alien to me. It just seems to be a small improvement over the current uni-lingual Forrest code. But certainly, if i18n is the way to go, or the "views" thing you mentioned before, then I'm all for it. I'm just thinking about possibilities. -- Pedro > > Ross >