David Crossley wrote:
Tim Williams wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Why do you want the output to look like document2html output and then be
passed into the existing pipelines?
Because that's how views work right now. I didn't have this grand
redesign scheme in my mind at the time. I thought we were getting
XHTML2 to work with the current views and replacing the **body-*.html
aggregation "part" in the **page pipeline with an xthml2tohtml
equivalent was how I did it.
Don't we just want XHTML2 -> output plugin = desired output
That's what it is, but views operate on html structured like the
output of document2html. I wasn't redesigning views, just getting
xhtml2 to work with them.
Now i see. Tim is aiming to do the work in stages.
Get part of the XHTML2 working with the existing views
and skinning.
Others are leaving the existing skins and views systems
in place to continue operating as they do, while building
a parallel plugin (plugins) that do XHTML2 all the way
through.
Is that where the mismatch is occuring?
Certainly, that is the case with this commit. I'm not sure if this is a
good approach or not, only experimentation will show. So, please Tim,
don't delete your local changes. We are still asking questions and
learning from one anothers experiments.
Ross
