El vie, 02-12-2005 a las 08:20 -0500, Tim Williams escribió: > 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. >
No worries, mate. As soon as you have more time I am sure you will get into the whole stuff again. ;-) Thanks very much for your thoughts they are always great. > > 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? > Actually Ross already gave an answer to this, but let me give one to the last part of the paragraph. Non markup formats can define e.g. <forrest:view type="rtf"> <forrest:contract name="someThing"> </forrest:view> The output would be just be placed in an empty document. No structure needed, so no hooks used and additional markup (besides the one the contract may produce). > > > 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"? > Hmm, actually with generic markup you can still have the definition of more then 1 format. e.g. <forrest:view type="html"> <div class="test" id="1"> <forrest:contract name="someThing"> </div> </forrest:view> <forrest:view type="rtf"> <forrest:contract name="someThing"> </forrest:view> <forrest:view type="fo"> <fo:block> <forrest:contract name="someThing"> </fo:block> </forrest:view> ... > > - 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. > hmm, generic markup could do the same, or? > > - 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? <forrest:view type="html"> <div class="test" id="1"> <forrest:contract name="someThing"> <forrest:contract name="someThingElse"> </div> </forrest:view> > > > 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. Yeah, I am pretty sure that it can be done. I played around and I thought about something like: <document> <section> ... <forrest:view type="html"> <forrest:contract name="someNote"> </forrest:view> </section> </document> Which means any given document can request format specific extra content. We only have to enable the transformation in the corresponding pipelines. > I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how tightly > bound our templating language (*fv) to a markup output though. Actually the dispatcher should not be tight to a markup format, it should support any given format. > I > haven't looked at your newer java stuff yet to see if those new > attributes are required or not. No hooks are right now just passed through no transformation yet implemented. > 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;) Your feedback was and is most valuable. Thx for taking the time. > --tim salu2 -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
