On Saturday 30 July 2005 3:22 pm, Ross Gardler wrote: > > <forrest:contract name="content-feeder"> > > <forrest:properties contract="content-feeder"> > > <forrest:property name="content-feeder" > > nugget="get.nugget.feeder"> > > <url>/feeds/somefeed.xml</url> > > </forrest:property> > > </forrest:properties> > > </forrest:contract> > > My point is that I can already do the this same processing with: > <document> > <header>...</header> > <body> > <xi:include src="/feeds/somefeed.xml"/> > </body> > </document> > > All that I can see that is changing is that in views the included src is > identified in a contract rather than in the original src document. I > agree that this allows us to separate the role of site designer and > content author, and this is great, but I do not see how this changes our > processing other than adding a new configuration location. > > I'm afraid I'm just not getting the significance of what you are saying.
Well how would you "skin" the content in this case? I think contracts offer a very nice way of _encapsulating_ the content, and that is what makes them attractive. Another advantage IMHO is that contracts can be parameterised (for eg: the URL for the feed, or the name of the copyright owner) Contracts also make it *much* easier for users to control how Forrest generates output. For instance, I might want that I include a custom heading everytime I include an RSS feed -- how would you do that with a simple <xi:include>? Its so easy to add and test a new contract -- I really like that ability. Diwaker -- Web/Blog/Gallery: http://floatingsun.net
pgpoXzyOUghpZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
