Andreas Hartmann schrieb:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Presentation configuration will be moved
inside Modules. While none of the old definitions of "Resource" are
needed, the word is already used by Lenya, and should be used before
adding a new word.
As I understood it, the term "resource" is rejected by most developers,
because the meaning is too general. But I guess "resource" vs.
"content item" will be a never-ending story unless we do a vote and
all developers commit to the decision.
IMO we need to distinguish between pieces of content to be managed by
the CMS (Lenya) and other "stuff", for which Lenya may also potentially
provide interfaces: what about the XSL stylesheets for example. They are
not content and should not be seen by content maintainers. They are
however resources of the CMS and, maybe, one day in the future, they
will be editable within the CMS (administration area? a new "design
area"? but that day, they still won't be content)
That's why I favor explicitly having the word "content" in whatever
terminology we use to describe pieces of content. Thus my proposal a
while back (http://wiki.apache.org/lenya/ProposalContentModel), where
"ContentItem" is a piece of content (or ContentNugget, or whatever), and
a Document is a collection of such pieces.
I am not trying to say "I am right, why doesn't everybody agree" ;)
But to be honest, I still haven't understood what is wrong with the
proposal above.
(...)
8. "Resource" is better than "ContentItem" because it contains fewer
words.
-1
--
Wolfgang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
