On 12/2/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all,
I've unfortunately been too busy to properly keep up with all of your progress so this may not be worth much. > lately we proposed a new attribute @element for the forrest:hook > element. Now it is possible to have any markup as hook. I didn't catch this but now that I understand it, it makes me think that we might be letting our templating language make too many assumptions about the output (e.g. that it is markup). Same thing for the new hooksXPath attribute. How are these supportive of non-markup output formats like text/rtf? > That made me think: > - why do we want to have forrest:hooks instead of direct markup? To keep it independent of a specific output format - an generic container that only has a "div" meaning when the view @type="html"? > - what are the advantages of forrest:hooks? I don't know -- it's been a while since I've looked into the details of this stuff but I think they are needed to group contracts together since contracts can't contain other contracts. > - would it not be sufficient to have forrest:view and forrest:contract? If you had two contracts that needed the same output style how could you do it without having a hook to contain them? > I will later post my views before I hear some opinions. I reckon I think the hooks are needed, but that's based on a dated understanding of this stuff. Since you are asking the question, I gather that you might believe that it could be done without hooks and I trust that. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how tightly bound our templating language (*fv) to a markup output though. I haven't looked at your newer java stuff yet to see if those new attributes are required or not. Sorry for not being able to keep up with you on this stuff so that you can get some more valuable feedback -- you're simply moving too fast for me right now;) --tim
