On 9/8/05, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim Williams wrote: > > I'll read the rest of this later but really quickly I don't see how > > moving the navi stuff out to a contract (which I agree with btw) is > > going to solve my problem. It's not going to change that the internal > > plugin xmap has match precedence over the menu.xmap. > > > I'm not sure exactly what the problem is here. Yo9u only refer to > problems with *.html matches. However, I don't think I need to > understand the problem because the internal plugin is intended to be a > complete rewrite of core (see the start of the IRC logs from where > Nickola logged in). In this plugin we will be replacing *all* matches in > core. > > i.e. add a ew menu.xmap to the plugin.
This "i.e." is key;) It's taken me some time to realize the scope of what we're trying to accomplish with this plugin. As much talk as we had around it - I don't know if everyone fully considered the scope of what we are under-taking here. Since the plugin and forrest tuesday were titled "xhtml2 in the core" I never thought much about the extra stuff (e.g. view refinement, etc.) -- even though, as you point out, it was written down like that. > > I've been thinking we were taking baby steps here. I don't know that > > I want to tackle both "xhtml2 to core" and "views refinement" at the > > same time. > > I don't think we can separate them efficiently, but I'm still reading... > > > My goal has just been to get the former done with current > > views, then tackle views refinement armed with what was learned in the > > first step. > > Hmmm... > > > I think it'll take going through the pain of the first > > step in order for everyone to be able to speak intelligently about > > views and what the implications of suggestioning certain conceptual > > refinements might be technically. > > There is some value in what you say here. However, I hate doing the same > job twice and always like to avoid doing so. > > In other words, if it is not going to increase the workload then I say > go for it. I only raised the issue because your mail made me think that > you perhaps hadn't understood what the TR meant and the direction we are > heading as a project (you being fairly new around here and all that). I think I grasped the TR. I didn't grasp that the scope of the current effort was implementing the entire TR. I thought we were only focused on the first part -- using XTHML2 as our source. I just didn't pick up on that earlier for some reason. > > For example, in this process so far, I've been notetaking my own ideas > > of how we might improve views but I don't want that to slow down the > > xhtml2 to core progress -- as it will require lots of > > non-code-but-thinking discussion. > > By all means, proceed with your direction. We (the community) will > continue to make you aware of where we think we need to go in the > future. Your new eyes on the core code can only serve to add value to > those ideas. ok, i assume that someone will revert when I go astray;) > My mails are meant to be informative/discussive, they do *not* contain > instructions ;-) Yeah, this part I understood;) --tim
