> -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Gardler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 18 August 2006 8:11 PM > To: dev@forrest.apache.org > Subject: Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation? > > Gav.... wrote: > >>- XHTML2 as internal format > > > > > > Cool, does it work good? > > Yes it works like a charm thanks to the work we already did in the > aborted XHTMl2 plugin. I've reused the sample document you created and > the stylesheet someone found for that work (sorry I can't remember who). > > It needs more testing of course... > > >>If we have a mime-type that gives us enough information it will use that > >>(i.e. an OOo document). If not it will try looking ahead into the > >>contents of the file until it has enough info. For example: > >> > >>while ((numRead = reader.read(buf)) != -1 && mimeType == null) { > >> String readData = String.valueOf(buf, 0, numRead); > >> fileData.append(readData); > >> buf = new char[1024]; > >> if (fileData.toString().contains("<?xml")) { > >> String type = getXMLDocumentType(fileData.toString()); > >> doc = new XMLSourceDocument(fileData.toString(), reader); > >> } > >>} > >> > > > > > > Not totally foolproof this, that declaration could be in .html files, > .php > > files could possibly contain no PHP whatsoever (useless waste but I've > see > > it). > > Yes, of course, remember this is just a proof of concept protoype it's > not supposed to be complete. > > In order to support other inputs we need to add the necessary processing > to this factory (actually, it would be done by a config file, but that's > all for future work on a real implementation if we decide to go for it). > > >>- decide if we should continue experimenting along this line. > > > > > > Sounds good to me, I'd like to see what you've got so far, so I can play > and > > judge better. Can you put in in whiteboard, or would a branch be > > needed/preferred, either way is good for me. > > I'm certainly willing to put it in the whiteboard but I'm not sure > whether I should or not. > > As a community, we do not have a consensus yet and I don't really want > to go throwing code in to the mix until we have that consensus. I don't > want to encourage anyone to work on this code at the expense of our > existing core, we are thin on the ground as it is. > > That being said, it may be helpful to see the code in order to bring > about a consensus. What do others think? (I'm particularly interested in > objections, I suspect there will be people who think the risk of > splitting the community is too great at this stage of the discussion). > > Ross
This is true, take my comments as my +1 to do that. There is a but, we should not hold off on getting the 0.8 release out ( or 1.0 as you mentioned previously), I think it would be good to get a release out and if need be we can start with a clean slate with this in whiteboard. Gav... > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.2/422 - Release Date: 8/17/2006
