On Saturday 30 July 2005 4:38 pm, Ross Gardler wrote: > > o naming and terminology: what is a view? what is a template? given the > > same content (generated by some "template"), are there different "views" > > for each output type? > > This was discussed at the hackathon, and I just sent a mail to help us > agree terminology.
Its looking great, thanks! Once polished, we can push it into the docs (or work on it more on the Wiki, as I have proposed) :) > > o unification: most of the work on views so far has focused on XHTML. > > again, i'm having a hard time envisioning a unified framework that > > integrates all input/output formats. > > This was touched on at ApacheCon. in fact it was pointed out that the > current way of defining a view can't be reused in other formats as it > has the concept of head and body hard coded whilst other formats don't > have them (text for example) or have a more complex representation of > them (FO for example). > > I agree that this is an extremely important issue that we need to > address sooner rather than later. In my view this fits into the > configuration point above - would you agree? Perhaps. I'm still not sure whats the best way to structure this. My first instinct tells me that a contract should be output independent -- that is, once I include a siteinfo-copyright contract in my view, for instance, irrespective of what output format I use (XHTML, text, pdf), it should generate the appropriate expected content. In this view, then, each contract must provide suitable implementations for different output types (which is where I figured the "type=" field in contract definition would be used). Let keep the discussion flowing. Diwaker -- Web/Blog/Gallery: http://floatingsun.net
pgpP35CEPJOx9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
