Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 20:54 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
Tim Williams wrote:
On 6/23/05, Diwaker Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now that the release is just around the corner (since the website is
already updated, I guess we're just waiting for the announcement,
perhaps we should jot down a priority list of new features for 0.8.
Personally, I'd like to see the following happening:
...
I'd add...
o Metadata -- I'd personally like to see support for inline dublin
core "meta" tags, custom metadata, and external [RDF-based] metacards.
This is a definite need, I'm not sure it will make into 0.8 though. If
someone is available to implement it for 0.8 then it goes in. I can
imagine myself looking into this for 0.9 if it hasn't already been done.
...
o Perspectives/Logic:Views as described
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=111942914210799&w=2\
I think we need more discussion on a design for this. I'd be more
comfortable if this kind of information was in the document metadata
rather than in the view. +1 to the concept though, just not sure how and
when. It should certainly be in the issue tracker.
lol
I reckon the whole design of views needs discussion (I will never stop
on saying this). ;-)
Seriously, coming back to metadata:
I recommend to split the forrest:properties from the view. Ross was
never really comfortable with their existence in the view and I agreed
saying they are right now a later entry point into the processing
pipeline (that I have in mind).
I agree on an earlier mail from nicola (about metadata) and suggest:
index.fv
index.prop
index.meta
index.xml
or:
index.fv.xml
index.prop.xml
index.meta.xml
index.xml
Just to confirm, these are optional right? We have default files:
default.fv
default.prop
default.meta
and the above override the per file versions above.
It would be great to have per directory defaults too that could override
the defaults, but be overridden by the files above.
Actually I am unsure which one is better because one invents fancy (e.g.
*.meta) extensions, the other is reserving this extensions in the naming
(*.meta.xml).
I'd go for *.meta.xml my reasoning is that we will also provide things
like *.source.xml and other such patterns. With the locationmap it is
not a problem that you are reserving extension, they can be changed on a
per site basis if necessary.
The *.prop would contain the view specific extra content dispatcher
(nuggets) that are now stored in the view.
Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with views terminology yet. Can you give
me this in English, or even with a code example?
What is now missing is the logic:views part, because IMO that part has
to stay in the view. The logic:view part is for the designer like the
whole view. logic:view is handling *only* presentation logic to the
view.
Good point.
Ross
