Michael Wechner wrote:
Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
Michael Wechner wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
agreed. but imnsho it does not warrant a special mechanism comprised
of 2 stylesheets, an undocumented ad-hoc xml namespace and number of
pipelines in the global sitemap. the version information will be moved
to publication.xconf.
check the archives and you will see that we actually agreed to such a
merge quite some time ago ;-)
good to know. must've missed that one.
right. my current approach provides a generic listing of the
publication's configuration plus the usual links to docs and login -
i.e. stuff that is of interest to admins and editors.
+1 to merge, but merge the whole structure.
the whole structure cannot be merged iiuc. publication.xconf is a
Configurable data file, and the Configurable interface supports only a
subset of XML - notably, mixed content is not supported, which would
be natural for a "readme" section.
therefore my current approach is to allow only simple fields in
publication.xconf.
i'm also thinking of providing a global "readme.xml" that is called
via fallback. it can be used by developers to inform users about
important changes and required tweaks, and publications could override
it to add their own information.
I don't think that makes sense. This is what namespaces are good for.
??? i don't understand. can you clarify?
Btw, you might also want to consider RDF for this.
look, can we agree that lenya has this little problem of
over-engineering on one side vs. a minuscule developer community and
very little real-life testing on the other side?
i think RDF of all things is not going to change that for the better.
adding huge stacks of complicated mechanism for absolutely non-essential
features is imho part of the reason why lenya is a bit on the messy side
today.
lazy consensus in effect ;)
based on what definition? I mean about many days are we talking? What
about weekend, business days, people on vacation?
I think it's important to get this straight, otherwise it's just
meaningless
note the smiley. i was grinning because i anticipated the usual
situation: /me starts hacking frantically, and everybody else is out
of office until monday...
it is not my intention to sneak something in without proper review and
discussion.
i'll post a patch for you to review before anything will be committed.
at the moment, the patch is at 557 lines out, 258 lines in, with a
slight gain in functionality (which is how i like things to be ;)
I do not consider "lazy consensus" as something which we should toy
with, but a clear definition for a process. As said I am not sure if we
actually defined it clearly. Any pointers are very welcome.
point taken. i took it to mean "if someone objects, please speak up." i
think it's ok to use the phrase for changes that the poster does not
think are subject to much debate. if it turns out there is disagreement,
commits can always be reverted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
