El mié, 05-01-2005 a las 09:52, Nicola Ken Barozzi escribió:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> ...
> > Forrest is about free choice of input/output formats. Just manifest that
> > in the docu and that's it.
>
> What do *we* support as an input format?
>
> If we keep using xdocs ourselves, users will t
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
...
Forrest is about free choice of input/output formats. Just manifest that
in the docu and that's it.
What do *we* support as an input format?
If we keep using xdocs ourselves, users will tend to use those, as they
will feel more "safe", it's the Forrest "standard".
IMH
El mar, 04-01-2005 a las 05:03, Antonio Gallardo escribió:
> On Lun, 3 de Enero de 2005, 18:47, Ross Gardler dijo:
> I would therefore like to add my support to the suggestion (from David I
> > think) that we simply change the documentation to make it clear that
> > HTML and XHTML are suitable inpu
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 09:15 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> We should also suggest a list of correct XHTML1.x editors.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> PS: Emacs, vi, jedit, notepad, etc are not the editors I'm talking about
This may be too far afield for the developer list. What are your use
cases fo
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 22:03 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> On Lun, 3 de Enero de 2005, 18:47, Ross Gardler dijo:
> I would therefore like to add my support to the suggestion (from David I
> > think) that we simply change the documentation to make it clear that
> > HTML and XHTML are suitable inpu
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
...
if you want to use html as
source that is fine. But suggesting people to use html is backwards...
...
can we use xhtml editors instead?
...
That HTML should be deprecated in favor of xhtml and this move is not
helping a bit.
Making docs difficult to edit by using xml i
On Lun, 3 de Enero de 2005, 18:47, Ross Gardler dijo:
I would therefore like to add my support to the suggestion (from David I
> think) that we simply change the documentation to make it clear that
> HTML and XHTML are suitable input formats whilst also identifying the
> more rigid formats availabl
Mark Eggers wrote:
I'm just a long-time reader of the dev mailing list,
so I don't know if my comments are appropriate.
All comments from all people with an opinion are appropriate, discussion
is the only way to ensure we avoid problems.
-1 since it removes document content structure. This
lack
Mark Eggers wrote:
> I'm just a long-time reader of the dev mailing list,
> so I don't know if my comments are appropriate.
Yes, comments from anyone who reads this dev list are
appropriate. Even when we are actually voting on something,
then your vote is also appropriate. In the final analysis,
t
I'm just a long-time reader of the dev mailing list,
so I don't know if my comments are appropriate.
However:
-1 since it removes document content structure. This
lack of structure will make skinning and
transformations much more complex.
>From the welcome:
Apache Forrest is an XML standards-o
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred
source format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
I am on -1 on this. Forrest is about XML, if you want to use
David Crossley wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
[snip]
I intend HTML4 and XHTML1.1, with HTML4 *preferred*, as it facilitates
usage. "Be forgiving in what you accept, be strict in what you deliver".
Why do we need to "prefer"? We could just say which input formats are
available and have a document
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> [snip]
> I intend HTML4 and XHTML1.1, with HTML4 *preferred*, as it facilitates
> usage. "Be forgiving in what you accept, be strict in what you deliver".
Why do we need to "prefer"? We could just say which input formats are
available and have a document which list the
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
El dom, 02-01-2005 a las 16:15, Ross Gardler escribió:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input*
format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
Ok, I'm still +1 as it is still an intermediate step to XHTML
El dom, 02-01-2005 a las 16:15, Ross Gardler escribió:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input*
> > format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
>
> Ok, I'm still +1 as it is still an intermediate step to XHTML as an
>
El sáb, 01-01-2005 a las 18:29, Ross Gardler escribió:
> In the short term (i.e. before we move to XHTML as the intermediate
> format) this would be:
>
> html -> XHTML -> XDoc -> output format
I reckon there should be no short term solution. If we give up xdocs
then xhtml *should* be the interm
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
...
The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input*
format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
Ok, I'm still +1 as it is still an intermediate step to XHTML as an
internal format (one of your original points I th
Ross Gardler wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
El sáb, 01-01-2005 a las 14:47, Ross Gardler escribió:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred
source format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site
template.
...
The important thing is that
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
El sáb, 01-01-2005 a las 14:47, Ross Gardler escribió:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, bu
El sáb, 01-01-2005 a las 14:47, Ross Gardler escribió:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> > I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
> > format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
> >
> > This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
The important thing is that (X)HTML(1|2) is used as a source
On Sab, 1 de Enero de 2005, 5:15, Nicola Ken Barozzi dijo:
>
> I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
> format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
>
> This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
>
> The important t
I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
The important thing is that (X)HTML(1|2) is used as a source format, so
that many edi
23 matches
Mail list logo
