On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote: > There's no way I'm adding text like that to the staticfiles > documentation. Not in a million years. It's confusing to me, and > *I've* been following this discussion. Can you imagine how confusing > that's going to be to people who *haven't*? The vast majority of users > aren't going to know what the heck an "asset manager" is, what this > "standards-complient" business is, or why they should care. They're > reading this document because they want to get a CSS file up onto a > production server somewhere. That's it.
Why do you think was the patch named "ridiculous-patch.diff"? I'm trying to communicate the *problem* because you haven't understood that, yet. But for some reason you expect me to send the *solution* (that's why you ask for a patch). That makes no sense at all because you don't know what the *problem* is. > As far as I can understand from the vast reams you've written so far, > what you're basically saying is "if you use url() in a CSS file it > needs to point to an URL that actually exists." I'm pretty sure most > people are smart enough to figure that out. No, you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. When people use django.contrib.staticfiles then of course they will use URLs that exist. Anything else is ridiculous. Why would anyone write URLs that don't work? :) But is it so difficult to understand that a lot of developers use some *other* asset manager? More than 70% of those other asset managers *force* you to write *broken* URLs. Most asset managers are broken! The problem is not staticfiles, but the large number of broken 3rd-party asset managers. Why are they broken? Because they combine your files and once your files are combined the URLs suddenly work. IOW, those asset managers convert *broken* URLs into *working* URLs. That's their convention and their standard. Is this stupid? Yes. It's still reality. A very large number of developers use this stupid broken convention. Now what do you think, how likely is it that open-source developers will use such a *broken* asset manager (not staticfiles) and release *broken* CSS code that is *incompatible* with django.contrib.staticfiles? It's far too likely for Django to ignore this. This is the last time I try to explain this. As you said, let's just wait for the first users to report a bug. I hope that then you'll realize that Django's *3rd-party* asset managers have to be fixed, not staticfiles. I'll do my part and at least convert django-mediagenerator to a staticfiles-compatible URL scheme. Bye, Waldemar -- Django on App Engine, MongoDB, ...? Browser-side Python? It's open-source: http://www.allbuttonspressed.com/blog/django -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
