Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Thorsten Scherler wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:23 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Thorsten Scherler wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 13:42 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: ... - making a skin have a default skinconf that can be overridden: in this way, all Apache could have an Apache skin with the copyright already set, and a consistent look; Hmm, in 0.8 we will not have the traditional skins that we have right now. They become views based on contracts. I hope that's not what we are going to tell our users =-) Why not? We are 1.0 and we are enhancing everyday. Why should I not tell the user that the things we have done before now we can do better? Don't get me wrong. I'm just talking about the wording, not the substance, which I feel is the right way forward. I don't think that many users would feel Forrest is easy, if to change style they have to change the views based on contracts. ;-) This contracts can be written the way you just suggested. Create a default copyright contract that can be used apache wide. BUT I would not suggest to keep it in the skinconf. The skinconf is to inflexible due to the fact that it is configuring the WHOLE site and not only on a per page/document base. What would you do when you have a one page or a couple of pages with different copyright notices? This is part of the other thread, the per-page based properties. Skinconf should be only the default for each section or page, that can overried it's values, I agree. I think I have to stop here on this, as one should now mix that thread with this conclusion and come to a unified design, and I'm too tired. Wanna try? :-) I am not only trying, dude. It is out there! Install the plugins and have a look. I'm talking about unifiend the new skinconf format with the more granular configuration Ross discussed about. I know that you did a very good job with the view concept, that has never been in question. I am talking since November last year about the concept and finally got the chance to implement it because I could take the time. I know that the skins are coming from you and they are REALLY great but they have their limitations. In the future I HOPE that the same some committer will say regarding the view concept (I am already seeing limitations that I do not like). It is not about an unified design it is about to make it happen. I would be VERY HAPPY if you can/will enhance the ideas and the design. To be honest I am only implementing it because I want to use forrest for my own personal webpage (nothing more and nothing less) and I am sad that you are tired because YOU ARE the one that we need to make it really a success. but I guess that is your personal decision and I respect it because I respect your work. Sorry, I think you misunderstood, and I think it's my fault :-/ I just said I'm tired not because of this discussion, but because I start working at 7:30 and go to bed at midnight and work on Sundays. I mean that I would like to help, and that I agree with the discussion and your work on the views, and that the evolution from the current skins is what I want to see... but that unfortunately, as much as I would like to help, I'm too tired because of a lot of real-life work I have to do now. Sorry for the confusion :-/ -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 09:29 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Thorsten Scherler wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:23 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Thorsten Scherler wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 13:42 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: ... - making a skin have a default skinconf that can be overridden: in this way, all Apache could have an Apache skin with the copyright already set, and a consistent look; Hmm, in 0.8 we will not have the traditional skins that we have right now. They become views based on contracts. I hope that's not what we are going to tell our users =-) Why not? We are 1.0 and we are enhancing everyday. Why should I not tell the user that the things we have done before now we can do better? Don't get me wrong. I'm just talking about the wording, not the substance, which I feel is the right way forward. I don't think that many users would feel Forrest is easy, if to change style they have to change the views based on contracts. ;-) Ok :) Reading it sounds REALLY awkward. ;-) LOL This contracts can be written the way you just suggested. Create a default copyright contract that can be used apache wide. BUT I would not suggest to keep it in the skinconf. The skinconf is to inflexible due to the fact that it is configuring the WHOLE site and not only on a per page/document base. What would you do when you have a one page or a couple of pages with different copyright notices? This is part of the other thread, the per-page based properties. Skinconf should be only the default for each section or page, that can overried it's values, I agree. I think I have to stop here on this, as one should now mix that thread with this conclusion and come to a unified design, and I'm too tired. Wanna try? :-) I am not only trying, dude. It is out there! Install the plugins and have a look. I'm talking about unifiend the new skinconf format with the more granular configuration Ross discussed about. I know that you did a very good job with the view concept, that has never been in question. Cheers. I am talking since November last year about the concept and finally got the chance to implement it because I could take the time. I know that the skins are coming from you and they are REALLY great but they have their limitations. In the future I HOPE that the same some committer will say regarding the view concept (I am already seeing limitations that I do not like). It is not about an unified design it is about to make it happen. I would be VERY HAPPY if you can/will enhance the ideas and the design. To be honest I am only implementing it because I want to use forrest for my own personal webpage (nothing more and nothing less) and I am sad that you are tired because YOU ARE the one that we need to make it really a success. but I guess that is your personal decision and I respect it because I respect your work. Sorry, I think you misunderstood, and I think it's my fault :-/ I am sorry as well I jumped the gun here. I just said I'm tired not because of this discussion, but because I start working at 7:30 and go to bed at midnight and work on Sundays. Dude, that is REALLY heavy I hope it will get better for you in the near future. I mean that I would like to help, and that I agree with the discussion and your work on the views, and that the evolution from the current skins is what I want to see... but that unfortunately, as much as I would like to help, I'm too tired because of a lot of real-life work I have to do now. I perfectly understand you. I am lucky that I got some projects that gave me some more freedom, but that will change as well again with the coming week where another busy project will take off. Sorry for the confusion :-/ No worries, mate. Thanks for your explanations. :) All the best for you and I hope your real-life work will get a wee bit more relaxed (it is not really healthy to work as much, you need time to relax). Sorry for jumping the gun. salu2 -- thorsten Together we stand, divided we fall! Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Thorsten Scherler wrote: ... All the best for you and I hope your real-life work will get a wee bit more relaxed (it is not really healthy to work as much, you need time to relax). You are right, it's starting to get better now, so at least I can write /some/ mails :-) -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 13:56 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Thorsten Scherler wrote: ... All the best for you and I hope your real-life work will get a wee bit more relaxed (it is not really healthy to work as much, you need time to relax). You are right, it's starting to get better now, so at least I can write /some/ mails :-) :) ...and to the /right/ ml. ;-) LOL Good to hear that it is getting better. salu2 -- thorsten Together we stand, divided we fall! Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Gidday,
here is a proposal for a new skinconf format.
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/forrest/trunk/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.viewHelper/src/documentation/skinconf.proposal.xml?view=autorev=160783
This is based on the recent user discussion (skinconf text elements in
group.svg) which showed again that our skinconf needs to be more
extensible without touching the dtd.
e.g.
forrest:property contract=copyright
!-- The following are used to construct a copyright statement --
year2005/year
vendorThe Apache Software Foundation./vendor
copyright-linkhttp://www.apache.org/licenses//copyright-link
/forrest:property
The idea is to allow all xml within a forrest:property.
WDYT?
[Sorry if I completly miss the point but as skinconf bothered me some hours a
few weeks ago I can't resist on commenting on this]
The Cocoon project has the need for many repositories in the future. We will
split our codebase in many blocks and each block will become as independant as
possible. This is also valid for the documentation with the reuslt that we get
many Forrest repos.
So far this isn't really difficult. But, it becomes interesting if you want to
have all those repos having the same look without manually copy files around but
this is a problem as skinconf contains project specific information and
information how the final docs are styled.
I ended up in using XML entities (see
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/trunk/src/documentation/src/skinconf.xml)
and svn:externals to merge content+project_specific_information with Cocoon
wide styling information (CSS, custom sitemap). This solved my problem (for now).
I haven't had a look at plugins yet (sorry, I'm still using Forrest 0.6) - if
you tell me that the use of them will solve my problem in the future, just
forget this request - otherwise I would be interested in discussing the Forrest
and properties topic with you.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 08:20 +0200, Reinhard Poetz wrote: [Sorry if I completly miss the point but as skinconf bothered me some hours a few weeks ago I can't resist on commenting on this] :) Cheers for your comments, you hit the nail on the head! The Cocoon project has the need for many repositories in the future. We will split our codebase in many blocks and each block will become as independant as possible. This is also valid for the documentation with the reuslt that we get many Forrest repos. Actually we will do the same in regards with plugins. A plugin is comparable to a cocoon block. It is aimed to be independent from the core and having their own documentation. So far this isn't really difficult. But, it becomes interesting if you want to have all those repos having the same look without manually copy files around but this is a problem as skinconf contains project specific information and information how the final docs are styled. I ended up in using XML entities (see http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/trunk/src/documentation/src/skinconf.xml) and svn:externals to merge content+project_specific_information with Cocoon wide styling information (CSS, custom sitemap). This solved my problem (for now). I had a look and it is a very elegant solution. I haven't had a look at plugins yet (sorry, I'm still using Forrest 0.6) - if you tell me that the use of them will solve my problem in the future, just forget this request - otherwise I would be interested in discussing the Forrest and properties topic with you. Thanks Reinhard to speak up and bring back a point that we discussed a while ago. I share your opinion that in the current skinconf we are mixing project specific information and look feel. That was one point to start the discussion again. Having your link in mind we have heading; extracss; colors; pdf; credits; as common components. IMO this components should be defined in a global file. Besides this global file we can have view specific configuration. I personally see the cocoon blocks a specific view on the cocoon project(documentation). The view concept is pretty new and will go as snapshot into 0.7 and will be the default skinning engine in 0.8. The concept is using the idea of fallbacks. If you do not need a specific view on your project the globally defined properties will be used. That leads us to the question which components should be split apart from the skinconf that we are using right now. Arik already pointed out (like yourself) that the color scheme should go into a file for its own. ...but there are many more components that we define in skinconf but IMO belong in a view config. e.g. feedback, trail, ... Splitting them apart makes it possible to easily use the fallback mechanism. If a block do not define block view specific properties the default properties will be used. I reckon there are only a couple of properties that need to be overridden by a block. The majority of properties will be used from the default view config from cocoon directly. Having said all this it makes me thinking whether or not we should keep the skinconf or better rename it (to viewConf.xml) and split it in different files (e.g. regarding colors colorConfCocoon.xml, colorConfLenya.xml, ...) Like I stated above your solution of entities is very elegant way but it is still a workaround and we should provide a mechanism to overcome this. Cheers for sharing your thoughts here in this list. p.s.: You may want to change (of the above given link) to cocoon.apache.org. ;-) search name=Apache Forrest domain=forrest.apache.org provider=google/ salu2 -- thorsten Together we stand, divided we fall! Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 13:42 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Thorsten Scherler wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 08:20 +0200, Reinhard Poetz wrote: [Sorry if I completly miss the point but as skinconf bothered me some hours a few weeks ago I can't resist on commenting on this] :) Cheers for your comments, you hit the nail on the head! Concur. It's very nice to hear from you here :-) ... So far this isn't really difficult. But, it becomes interesting if you want to have all those repos having the same look without manually copy files around but this is a problem as skinconf contains project specific information and information how the final docs are styled. I ended up in using XML entities IIUC it's about sharing the skinconf between projects. I haven't had a look at plugins yet (sorry, I'm still using Forrest 0.6) - if ... I share your opinion that in the current skinconf we are mixing project specific information and look feel. That was one point to start the discussion again. Having your link in mind we have heading; extracss; colors; pdf; credits; as common components. IMO this components should be defined in a global file. Besides this global file we can have view specific configuration. I personally see the cocoon blocks a specific view on the cocoon project(documentation). It seems that the separation that you are proposing is more theorical than practical, as it does not solve an actual need. ...right now I have not implement it that's why it is theoretical but I am SURE that is as well practical. ;-) Hmm, lets compare your solution with mine. Also IIUC this is not what it's about... that is sharing part of the skinconf between many Forrest-based sites. Yeah, if you define a default (global) skinconf where you keep all the default values then there is no need for forrest-based sites to even have one. They will use the fall-back skinconf that you will have to define for them. Instead, I would concentrate on one or more of the following: - having a sort of import of the values of another skinconf, as Ant's import. In this way a skinconf can use the values from another one, and add or redefine just the values it needs. Ok, I am talking about the same, only that I prefer to split the properties of skinconf in different files and then only override this files. - making a skin have a default skinconf that can be overridden: in this way, all Apache could have an Apache skin with the copyright already set, and a consistent look; Hmm, in 0.8 we will not have the traditional skins that we have right now. They become views based on contracts. This contracts can be written the way you just suggested. Create a default copyright contract that can be used apache wide. ...BUT I would not suggest to keep it in the skinconf. The skinconf is to inflexible due to the fact that it is configuring the WHOLE site and not only on a per page/document base. What would you do when you have a one page or a couple of pages with different copyright notices? - making it possible to render in a single site many subsites together. That is IMO another problem and has no direct connection with the skinconf. ...but thinking about it a little bit more, the view concept let you have different skinned pages (or subsites) within on project (if you talking about that). salu2 -- thorsten Together we stand, divided we fall! Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 08:20 +0200, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
[Sorry if I completly miss the point but as skinconf bothered me some
hours a few weeks ago I can't resist on commenting on this]
:) Cheers for your comments, you hit the nail on the head!
Concur. It's very nice to hear from you here :-)
:-)
I hope I find some time to catch up with the latest improvements in Forrest some
time ...
...
So far this isn't really difficult. But, it becomes interesting if
you want to have all those repos having the same look without
manually copy files around but this is a problem as skinconf contains
project specific information and information how the final docs are
styled.
I ended up in using XML entities
IIUC it's about sharing the skinconf between projects.
I haven't had a look at plugins yet (sorry, I'm still using Forrest
0.6) - if
...
I share your opinion that in the current skinconf we are mixing project
specific information and look feel. That was one point to start the
discussion again.
Having your link in mind we have heading; extracss;
colors;
pdf;
credits;
as common components. IMO this components should be defined in a global
file. Besides this global file we can have view specific configuration.
I personally see the cocoon blocks a specific view on the cocoon
project(documentation).
It seems that the separation that you are proposing is more theorical
than practical, as it does not solve an actual need.
Also IIUC this is not what it's about... that is sharing part of the
skinconf between many Forrest-based sites.
Instead, I would concentrate on one or more of the following:
- having a sort of import of the values of another skinconf, as Ant's
import. In this way a skinconf can use the values from another one,
and add or redefine just the values it needs.
- making a skin have a default skinconf that can be overridden: in this
way, all Apache could have an Apache skin with the copyright already
set, and a consistent look;
your ideas sound good but the question is: Where do the imported docs come from?
http?
- making it possible to render in a single site many subsites together.
this will become (already is) a need for your plugins and for Cocoon blocks.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
[snip a lot of intersting stuff]
I can't really comment on your ideas (I'm too long away from Forrest and don't
have enough time to learn what's new in 0.7 and 0.8) but sooner or later Cocoon
will provide blocks that will heavily influence how Cocoon based applications
are designed.
I don't want to say that you should wait for blocks (nobody knows when they will
be finished) but keep them in mind when you design future Forrest versions.
(e.g. the skinconf problem could be solved by 'real Cocoon blocks' very elegantly')
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Reinhard Poetz wrote: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: ... - making a skin have a default skinconf that can be overridden: in this way, all Apache could have an Apache skin with the copyright already set, and a consistent look; your ideas sound good but the question is: Where do the imported docs come from? http? It's already possible now. You can make your skin by extending an existing one, setting the values you want, packaging it, putting it on the web and making the forrest docs that need it get it via http; you can also get it directly from the drive if you presume that the skin zip is always downloaded with the Forrest docs (kind of like a lib). -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Thorsten Scherler wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 13:42 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: ... - making a skin have a default skinconf that can be overridden: in this way, all Apache could have an Apache skin with the copyright already set, and a consistent look; Hmm, in 0.8 we will not have the traditional skins that we have right now. They become views based on contracts. I hope that's not what we are going to tell our users =-) This contracts can be written the way you just suggested. Create a default copyright contract that can be used apache wide. BUT I would not suggest to keep it in the skinconf. The skinconf is to inflexible due to the fact that it is configuring the WHOLE site and not only on a per page/document base. What would you do when you have a one page or a couple of pages with different copyright notices? This is part of the other thread, the per-page based properties. Skinconf should be only the default for each section or page, that can overried it's values, I agree. I think I have to stop here on this, as one should now mix that thread with this conclusion and come to a unified design, and I'm too tired. Wanna try? :-) -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Thorsten Scherler wrote: .. This contracts can be written the way you just suggested. Create a default copyright contract that can be used apache wide. BUT I would not suggest to keep it in the skinconf. The skinconf is to inflexible due to the fact that it is configuring the WHOLE site and not only on a per page/document base. What would you do when you have a one page or a couple of pages with different copyright notices? This is part of the other thread, the per-page based properties. Skinconf should be only the default for each section or page, that can overried it's values, I agree. I think I have to stop here on this, as one should now mix that thread with this conclusion and come to a unified design, and I'm too tired. Wanna try? :-) For me the ability to do per page config is the critical factor. This will solve Cocoon's problems too since it can be per folder too. However, I'm avoiding getting involved with this discussion as I really want to work on the 0.7 release and I have little enough time for now. I'll be glad to return to this once 0.7 is done. In the meantime feel free to proceed as you see fit. Ross
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:23 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Thorsten Scherler wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 13:42 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: ... - making a skin have a default skinconf that can be overridden: in this way, all Apache could have an Apache skin with the copyright already set, and a consistent look; Hmm, in 0.8 we will not have the traditional skins that we have right now. They become views based on contracts. I hope that's not what we are going to tell our users =-) Why not? We are 1.0 and we are enhancing everyday. Why should I not tell the user that the things we have done before now we can do better? This contracts can be written the way you just suggested. Create a default copyright contract that can be used apache wide. BUT I would not suggest to keep it in the skinconf. The skinconf is to inflexible due to the fact that it is configuring the WHOLE site and not only on a per page/document base. What would you do when you have a one page or a couple of pages with different copyright notices? This is part of the other thread, the per-page based properties. Skinconf should be only the default for each section or page, that can overried it's values, I agree. I think I have to stop here on this, as one should now mix that thread with this conclusion and come to a unified design, and I'm too tired. Wanna try? :-) I am not only trying, dude. It is out there! Install the plugins and have a look. I am talking since November last year about the concept and finally got the chance to implement it because I could take the time. I know that the skins are coming from you and they are REALLY great but they have their limitations. In the future I HOPE that the same some committer will say regarding the view concept (I am already seeing limitations that I do not like). It is not about an unified design it is about to make it happen. I would be VERY HAPPY if you can/will enhance the ideas and the design. To be honest I am only implementing it because I want to use forrest for my own personal webpage (nothing more and nothing less) and I am sad that you are tired because YOU ARE the one that we need to make it really a success. ...but I guess that is your personal decision and I respect it because I respect your work. salu2 -- thorsten Together we stand, divided we fall! Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Arik Kfir wrote: Should I file a JIRA on this (RFE)? Yes please. --David
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Hi Arik, On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 19:55 +0200, Arik Kfir wrote: I've noticed that the skinconf.xml contains all the skin colors. Generally, that is the place they belong, but I see some problems with this: snip something we agree on/ What I would suggest is to introduce an additional (optional) file called skin-colors.xml which will contain the site's color definitions. It should be optional of course. Yeah that would make sense. What's more, with this configuration, we will be able to provide several files - each containing the skin-colors.xml file to use (the forrest.properties can have a property that points to it, with a sensible default) so I can have several color configurations and simply pick out the one I want by changing a property in forrest.properties. What do you think? I reckon I would not store it in the forrest.properties because the idea is to be able to change this color settings with a cforms tool (or something similar) in webapp mode. That brings us a step forward in the direction of a skinbot. ;-) I reckon it should be stored in the view (the link). Generally speaking I am +1 to split skinconf.xml apart. Since this changes will be post 0.7, anyway, maybe we should generally discuss what belongs in skinconf.xml and what in e.g. contractconf.xml salu2 Thorsten Scherler wrote: Gidday, here is a proposal for a new skinconf format. http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/forrest/trunk/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.viewHelper/src/documentation/skinconf.proposal.xml?view=autorev=160783 This is based on the recent user discussion (skinconf text elements in group.svg) which showed again that our skinconf needs to be more extensible without touching the dtd. e.g. forrest:property contract=copyright !-- The following are used to construct a copyright statement -- year2005/year vendorThe Apache Software Foundation./vendor copyright-linkhttp://www.apache.org/licenses//copyright-link /forrest:property The idea is to allow all xml within a forrest:property. WDYT? salu2 -- thorsten Together we stand, divided we fall! Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Thorsten Scherler wrote: Gidday, here is a proposal for a new skinconf format. http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/forrest/trunk/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.viewHelper/src/documentation/skinconf.proposal.xml?view=autorev=160783 +0 This is based on the recent user discussion (skinconf text elements in group.svg) which showed again that our skinconf needs to be more extensible without touching the dtd. +1 e.g. forrest:property contract=copyright !-- The following are used to construct a copyright statement -- year2005/year vendorThe Apache Software Foundation./vendor copyright-linkhttp://www.apache.org/licenses//copyright-link /forrest:property The idea is to allow all xml within a forrest:property. What about the proposal already in SVN, that we have discussed before? Why not make the DTD completely correct without having all xml inside forrest:property? -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 10:36 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Thorsten Scherler wrote: Gidday, here is a proposal for a new skinconf format. http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/forrest/trunk/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.viewHelper/src/documentation/skinconf.proposal.xml?view=autorev=160783 +0 This is based on the recent user discussion (skinconf text elements in group.svg) which showed again that our skinconf needs to be more extensible without touching the dtd. +1 e.g. forrest:property contract=copyright !-- The following are used to construct a copyright statement -- year2005/year vendorThe Apache Software Foundation./vendor copyright-linkhttp://www.apache.org/licenses//copyright-link /forrest:property The idea is to allow all xml within a forrest:property. What about the proposal already in SVN, that we have discussed before? Why not make the DTD completely correct without having all xml inside forrest:property? Can you post the link of the proposal, I could not find it. ...I could remember the discussion but could not find the proposal. Cheers for the headsup. salu2 -- thorsten Together we stand, divided we fall! Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Thorsten Scherler wrote: On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 10:36 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Thorsten Scherler wrote: ... here is a proposal for a new skinconf format. http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/forrest/trunk/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.viewHelper/src/documentation/skinconf.proposal.xml?view=autorev=160783 +0 ... The idea is to allow all xml within a forrest:property. What about the proposal already in SVN, that we have discussed before? Why not make the DTD completely correct without having all xml inside forrest:property? Can you post the link of the proposal, I could not find it. http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-144 -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 13:17 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Can you post the link of the proposal, I could not find it. http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-144 Cheers Nicola. Yeah I am +1 to use the one in /etc/. The only addition would be to have @name in element. salu2 -- thorsten Together we stand, divided we fall! Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Should I file a JIRA on this (RFE)?
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Hi Arik,
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 19:55 +0200, Arik Kfir wrote:
I've noticed that the skinconf.xml contains all the skin colors.
Generally, that is the place they belong, but I see some problems with
this:
snip something we agree on/
What I would suggest is to introduce an additional (optional) file
called "skin-colors.xml" which will contain the site's color
definitions. It should be optional of course.
Yeah that would make sense.
What's more, with this configuration, we will be able to provide
several files - each containing the "skin-colors.xml" file to use (the
forrest.properties can have a property that points to it, with a
sensible default) so I can have several color configurations and
simply "pick out" the one I want by changing a property in
forrest.properties.
What do you think?
I reckon I would not store it in the forrest.properties because the idea
is to be able to change this color settings with a cforms tool (or
something similar) in webapp mode. That brings us a step forward in the
direction of a skinbot. ;-)
I reckon it should be stored in the view (the link).
Generally speaking I am +1 to split skinconf.xml apart.
Since this changes will be post 0.7, anyway, maybe we should generally
discuss what belongs in skinconf.xml and what in e.g. contractconf.xml
salu2
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Gidday,
here is a proposal for a new skinconf format.
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/forrest/trunk/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.viewHelper/src/documentation/skinconf.proposal.xml?view=autorev=160783
This is based on the recent user discussion (skinconf text elements in
group.svg) which showed again that our skinconf needs to be more
extensible without touching the dtd.
e.g.
forrest:property contract="copyright"
!-- The following are used to construct a copyright statement --
year2005/year
vendorThe Apache Software Foundation./vendor
copyright-linkhttp://www.apache.org/licenses//copyright-link
/forrest:property
The idea is to allow all xml within a forrest:property.
WDYT?
salu2
[Proposal] New format for skinconf
Gidday, here is a proposal for a new skinconf format. http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/forrest/trunk/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.viewHelper/src/documentation/skinconf.proposal.xml?view=autorev=160783 This is based on the recent user discussion (skinconf text elements in group.svg) which showed again that our skinconf needs to be more extensible without touching the dtd. e.g. forrest:property contract=copyright !-- The following are used to construct a copyright statement -- year2005/year vendorThe Apache Software Foundation./vendor copyright-linkhttp://www.apache.org/licenses//copyright-link /forrest:property The idea is to allow all xml within a forrest:property. WDYT? salu2 -- thorsten Together we stand, divided we fall! Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
I've noticed that the skinconf.xml contains all the skin colors. Generally, that is the place they belong, but I see some problems with this: a. it takes a lot of space (half the file is dedicated to colors) b. since the colors are usually grouped (per skin - pelt, leather, etc) - meaning there should be some additional level that's currently missing c. the default color definitions are not located anywhere except as a comment in the default skinconf.xml - which means most people do not remove the comments because you wouldn't know where to retrieve them in case you will change skin What I would suggest is to introduce an additional (optional) file called "skin-colors.xml" which will contain the site's color definitions. It should be optional of course. What's more, with this configuration, we will be able to provide several files - each containing the "skin-colors.xml" file to use (the forrest.properties can have a property that points to it, with a sensible default) so I can have several color configurations and simply "pick out" the one I want by changing a property in forrest.properties. What do you think? Thorsten Scherler wrote: Gidday, here is a proposal for a new skinconf format. http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/forrest/trunk/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.viewHelper/src/documentation/skinconf.proposal.xml?view=autorev=160783 This is based on the recent user discussion (skinconf text elements in group.svg) which showed again that our skinconf needs to be more extensible without touching the dtd. e.g. forrest:property contract="copyright" !-- The following are used to construct a copyright statement -- year2005/year vendorThe Apache Software Foundation./vendor copyright-linkhttp://www.apache.org/licenses//copyright-link /forrest:property The idea is to allow all xml within a forrest:property. WDYT? salu2
