Sorry, local time in this log (GMT +10) **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat Sep 17 02:21:41 2005 Sep 17 02:21:41 --> You are now talking on #for-s2 Sep 17 02:21:41 --- niven.freenode.net sets mode +n #for-s2 Sep 17 02:21:41 --- niven.freenode.net sets mode +s #for-s2 Sep 17 12:10:49 --> JennyCurran (n=eggdrop) has joined #for-s2 Sep 18 21:42:27 --- xley2 sets mode +n #for-s2 Sep 18 21:45:37 --- xley2 has changed the topic to: Decide how to approach xhtml2/views Sep 19 03:12:14 --> tscherler has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 03:12:36 hi JennyCurran Sep 19 03:12:41 hi xley2 Sep 19 04:16:56 --> diwaker has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 04:17:15 hey guys Sep 19 04:17:27 am i late? have been travelling a lot so missed out the exact time Sep 19 04:17:43 can someone point out jenny's url so that i can look at the logs Sep 19 04:36:39 ok so i'm early then :-) Sep 19 04:48:01 --> tscherle1 has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 05:03:51 <-- tscherler has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) Sep 19 05:06:14 --- tscherle1 is now known as tscherler Sep 19 05:39:44 <-- diwaker has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) Sep 19 06:38:11 --> xley (n=crossley@apache/committer/xley) has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 06:40:01 --- xley is now known as crossley Sep 19 06:47:29 --- tscherler is now known as thorsten_walking Sep 19 06:54:15 --> rgardler has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 06:54:32 Hi Jenny ;-) Sep 19 06:58:06 whois crossley Sep 19 06:59:07 (sorry just playing with commands - previous entry - forgot the slash) Sep 19 06:59:42 I'll talk to myself for a while this may be interesting info for those reading the logs Sep 19 06:59:54 It appears when you do "/whois USERNAME" Sep 19 07:00:17 that the provider id is displayed - this often has the IP number of your machine Sep 19 07:00:22 I don't like that Sep 19 07:00:25 However... Sep 19 07:00:48 If you are an Apache committer you can get a cloak that works here on irc.freenode.org Sep 19 07:00:57 This masks your IP number Sep 19 07:01:49 I'm not sure how it works but see committers/docs/freenode-cloaks.txt (i.e in committers module in CVS) Sep 19 07:02:20 errr. that will be in SVN Sep 19 07:02:29 --> tscherler has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 07:02:47 Good evening Thorsten Sep 19 07:02:50 Hmm, i have a cloak for my primary nickname 'xley' Sep 19 07:02:54 hi all Sep 19 07:03:03 hi Sep 19 07:03:08 Good morning David Sep 19 07:03:15 --- crossley is now known as xley Sep 19 07:03:19 dhi ross Sep 19 07:03:21 hi david Sep 19 07:03:29 hi jenny jejej Sep 19 07:03:30 Yep, that works now david - must get me one of those Sep 19 07:04:12 one of you are using gaim? Sep 19 07:04:22 cheche has a log but it doesn't seem to be working Sep 19 07:04:29 http://casa.che-che.com/~bot/forrest/forrest.log.18Sep2005 Sep 19 07:04:55 I'm running a log (I think) I'm sure others are too Sep 19 07:05:03 Thorsten - I'm not GAIM Sep 19 07:05:22 yes, me too, but a live log via http was very useful last time Sep 19 07:05:36 I am trying to get my system up running with my backup Sep 19 07:05:52 shold I call him? Sep 19 07:06:04 ask whether he can check? Sep 19 07:06:09 yes please Sep 19 07:08:13 but cheche said he might not be around at this time Sep 19 07:09:58 <-- thorsten_walking has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) Sep 19 07:11:58 he Sep 19 07:12:11 he is not at home but at parrents place Sep 19 07:12:15 without internet Sep 19 07:12:29 he will be back in 2 hours Sep 19 07:12:52 Then I would suggest that we proceeed and if anyone arrives late we can send them a log via email to catch up Sep 19 07:12:59 he gave me the access to his home computer but it seesm the firewall blocks me Sep 19 07:13:25 does anymore wants to try? Sep 19 07:13:47 Probably best for you not to give login details out without his permission Sep 19 07:14:19 he gave me this permission as well ;-) Sep 19 07:14:29 it is only the bot user Sep 19 07:14:38 Oh OK, I'll try then - obviously send details via email Sep 19 07:14:38 anyway Sep 19 07:14:46 jupp Sep 19 07:15:12 In the meanitme shall we proceed? it's 15 mins past start time now Sep 19 07:15:52 --> twilliams_ has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 07:16:05 give me a moment Sep 19 07:16:08 Heh, Tim - good timing - you missed nothing yet Sep 19 07:16:48 thanks, sorry for the tardiness - wife's fault;) Sep 19 07:18:03 I didn't mean "good timing" in the "your late sense" but because you arrived just as I said "shall we start" Sep 19 07:18:18 does jenny have a url yet? Sep 19 07:18:34 Yes, but she seems to be aslepp Sep 19 07:18:44 http://casa.che-che.com/~bot/forrest/forrest.log.18Sep2005 Sep 19 07:19:08 yeah, i heard the right way... Sep 19 07:19:13 rgardler you have mail Sep 19 07:19:27 We said we would mail logs to late comers, however, all you have missed is that discussion and a few other "what shall we do about logs" related scomments Sep 19 07:20:59 I can't get Jenny to open the door either - shall we proceed with the "send log by email" solution? Sep 19 07:21:02 ok, someone's loggin it locally in cause jenny isn't really there? Sep 19 07:21:09 Yes Sep 19 07:21:15 yeah, don't worry about it for me though Sep 19 07:22:17 OK - so I'll start as I promised I would: "What do we intend to gain from using XHTML2 in core?" Sep 19 07:22:26 need to restart my client back in a second Sep 19 07:22:33 please one more moment Sep 19 07:22:37 <-- tscherler has quit ("Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/") Sep 19 07:22:41 OK, hold those answers... Sep 19 07:23:06 the sun is rising here Sep 19 07:23:15 So you'll be waking up now then? Sep 19 07:23:26 no coffee yet Sep 19 07:23:43 GO get Coffeee, the sun is risin you must toast the day Sep 19 07:24:05 --> tscherler has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 07:24:07 I'm going for a whiskey while Thorsten is rebooting Sep 19 07:24:08 back Sep 19 07:24:14 jeje Sep 19 07:24:15 toast... ahh... shall i begin the beer conversation again? Sep 19 07:24:17 too late Sep 19 07:24:37 --- xley is now known as crossley Sep 19 07:25:28 coffee can wait. Are we ready now? Sep 19 07:25:35 I'm ready Sep 19 07:25:49 --> tscherle1 has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 07:26:05 Wow there's too of him, no wonder he gets so much done Sep 19 07:26:05 http://www.voresoel.dk/main.php?id=70 Sep 19 07:26:14 :) Sep 19 07:26:30 just getting my system back Sep 19 07:26:48 btw I fall in love with rsync Sep 19 07:26:50 ;-) Sep 19 07:27:10 it so nice getting the backup onto my system again Sep 19 07:28:16 so does that mean you are ready Thorsten? Sep 19 07:28:22 :) Sep 19 07:28:27 yeah Sep 19 07:28:37 OK - so I'll start as I promised I would: "What do we intend to gain from using XHTML2 in core?" Sep 19 07:29:55 i don't know Sep 19 07:30:24 where we want to apply xhtml2? Sep 19 07:30:36 Should the tab-* and menu-* as well output xhtml2? Sep 19 07:31:12 and then have yet another transform to do plain html? Sep 19 07:31:20 wait, ross that questionis different from the one you wanted to start with Sep 19 07:31:28 looking for you mail ... Sep 19 07:31:36 Oooops sorry... I was going from memory Sep 19 07:32:00 Thorsten, I think that is a different issue - that is more about *how*, first I want to understand *why* (I know my why, but not yours) Sep 19 07:32:26 "What are we trying to achieve by using XHMTL2 in the core?" Sep 19 07:32:32 to answer why we have to define where IMO Sep 19 07:32:43 that was Ross' first question Sep 19 07:32:45 actually I do not know Sep 19 07:33:04 I thought that we want to base our xdocs on xhtml2 Sep 19 07:33:05 that's how i interpreted what he just asked Sep 19 07:33:36 that make xhtml2 as input Sep 19 07:33:54 thorsten, is that all ? Sep 19 07:33:58 only input? Sep 19 07:34:03 yes Sep 19 07:34:05 IMO Sep 19 07:34:07 yes Sep 19 07:34:16 all internal is xml Sep 19 07:34:28 David/Tim - any thoughts before I tell you mine Sep 19 07:35:03 i don't know *why* personally.. but i gather that we're talking a peer xml format to xdoc rather than an input Sep 19 07:35:05 i have thoughts and been reading back mail to try to find why NKB thought so Sep 19 07:35:44 i wait until Tim finished Sep 19 07:35:47 i suppose there's the obvious, so as not to maintain our own dtd Sep 19 07:35:55 Tim, can you explain what you mean by "peer XML format to XDoc rather than input"? Sep 19 07:36:36 yes please Sep 19 07:36:49 i mean that we want it internally, rather than we normalizing to xdoc Sep 19 07:36:52 in other words... Sep 19 07:37:07 we don't want xhtml2->xdoc->html/pdf/etc Sep 19 07:37:15 we do want xhtml2->html/pdf/etc Sep 19 07:38:00 OK, I understand what you mean (I'm avoiding making comments for now, I'm in listening mode - which is highly unusual for me ;-) Sep 19 07:38:09 David...? Sep 19 07:38:21 okay ... Sep 19 07:38:43 1) xdoc is a non-standard format. Sep 19 07:39:02 i found this email from Stefano: Sep 19 07:39:15 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=107321718624591 Sep 19 07:39:40 2) Easier for tools like DocBook to just generate XHTML and we just use that, rather than then convert to xdoc. Sep 19 07:40:02 3) Easier validation of internal format: RELAX NG Sep 19 07:40:53 4) Nicola Ken seemed adamant to do it, and that is good enough for me (wish he was here) Sep 19 07:41:32 Those four are all that i can think of at the moment. Over to you ... Sep 19 07:41:50 Cooo, thanks all, any more comments before I speak up? Sep 19 07:41:57 (coool, that is ;-) Sep 19 07:42:06 or even cool... Sep 19 07:42:48 OK, I too have been reading up in the archives Sep 19 07:43:07 I was interested to find that this has been discussed for over three years now... Sep 19 07:43:29 As David said NKB was the original proponent (good enough to go for then...) Sep 19 07:43:42 I was also an early "believer" Sep 19 07:43:56 We fought hard to gain consensus and then neither of us did it... Sep 19 07:44:10 All the reasons have been given so far Sep 19 07:44:17 no need to maintain DTD Sep 19 07:44:29 Easier integration of editors (so input is agreed) Sep 19 07:44:45 we are not using a non-stanrard format (which scares users) Sep 19 07:44:58 XHTML2 is designed to be extensible Sep 19 07:45:04 easier to validate Sep 19 07:45:10 However, there is one more... Sep 19 07:45:20 Tim touched on it in his email... Sep 19 07:45:36 Lets think of the interface to Forrest Sep 19 07:45:52 On the input side we have XDoc and we are in agreement to replace this wtih XHTML2 Sep 19 07:46:01 However, on the output side we have HTML Sep 19 07:46:13 So we have *two* interfaces Sep 19 07:46:19 when one will do Sep 19 07:46:29 I say we use XHTML2 on input *and* output Sep 19 07:46:36 Standardise our interfaces Sep 19 07:46:47 (pausing for comments) Sep 19 07:48:21 No comments? (from here on in I'll stop if someone types something) Sep 19 07:48:33 What do we gain by doing this? Sep 19 07:48:34 agreement from me. Sounds like xhtml2 everywhere Sep 19 07:48:51 keep going Ross Sep 19 07:48:55 i don't get how that's different i suppose Sep 19 07:49:02 the "output" i mean Sep 19 07:49:22 Currently when we produce a different output format Sep 19 07:49:27 e.g. PDF Sep 19 07:49:39 we have a completely separate process Sep 19 07:49:54 that is, we output FO rather than HTML Sep 19 07:50:08 But it still goes through the document2html transformer Sep 19 07:50:18 That is an unnecessary step Sep 19 07:50:30 we should go src->XHTML2->FO Sep 19 07:50:57 As has been said, view *just* replace the last stage of the skinning process Sep 19 07:51:04 I think this is missing a trick Sep 19 07:51:27 Themes replace the last stage of skinnnig, views are about structure and content not about rendering Sep 19 07:51:34 see my recent mail to this Sep 19 07:51:50 Just goinng to re-read it... Sep 19 07:52:08 to throw in some remarks Sep 19 07:52:44 (22:50:47) rgardler: we should go src->XHTML2->FO -> whith all above said would be xhtml2-fo Sep 19 07:52:55 because src = xhtml2 Sep 19 07:53:27 amazon ECS -> XHTML2 -> FO Sep 19 07:53:33 i took src to be via an input plugin Sep 19 07:53:39 (for example of none XHTML2 input) Sep 19 07:54:36 22:46:45) rgardler: I say we use XHTML2 on input *and* output -> we have internal yes and all output plugins have to cope with xhtml2 but we still need xhtml as output Sep 19 07:55:02 (22:53:49) twilliams_: i took src to be via an input plugin-> me too Sep 19 07:55:43 src is the internal format produced by an input plugin Sep 19 07:56:10 IMO we still need a subset of element and how we want to render them Sep 19 07:56:18 Why do we need XHTML2 as an ouput from core? Sep 19 07:56:29 that would make up our internal format Sep 19 07:56:30 sorry XHTML as an output from core Sep 19 07:56:48 for the output plugins, or not? Sep 19 07:57:03 we need an internal format Sep 19 07:57:18 an interface for output plugins Sep 19 07:57:44 Thosten, I'm confused - are you saying XHTML should be the interface for output plugins? Sep 19 07:58:06 add the 2 sorry ;-) Sep 19 07:58:15 phew... ;-) Sep 19 07:59:02 (22:56:46) rgardler: sorry XHTML as an output from core -> but you said you only want xhtml2, or not? Sep 19 07:59:26 (see my correct in the next line) Sep 19 07:59:47 OK, so we need a "subset of elements" - we have that, we are not using *all* of XHTML2, only the equivalents of XDoc, that is our subset Sep 19 07:59:59 yes Sep 19 08:00:09 I think I missed your point then... Sep 19 08:00:53 actually what do we need to process? Sep 19 08:01:00 the main thing is the doc Sep 19 08:01:07 the rest is additional Sep 19 08:01:20 and IMO even the doc is additional Sep 19 08:01:32 "Actually there Sep 19 08:01:32 is no default pm anymore. You get what your view requests! " Sep 19 08:01:57 what is a "pm"? Sep 19 08:02:08 presentation model Sep 19 08:02:50 our aggregate of menu-*; tab-*; body-*, ... Sep 19 08:04:08 I am checkin in my stuff where I started to show what I mean Sep 19 08:04:11 one moment Sep 19 08:04:19 that is all content, isn't it? Sep 19 08:04:38 yes and no Sep 19 08:04:40 IMO Sep 19 08:04:48 navigation is meta-data Sep 19 08:05:37 it says something about the request in the current project Sep 19 08:06:11 I disagree, navigation says nothing about the *content* it is meta-data but not to the content, it is meta-data to the site, therefore it is content in the rendered page Sep 19 08:07:04 Anyway, more importantly (for me): I've read Thorstens mail about 5 times now, and I really can't see the difference between what he is suggesting and what I am suggesting, can anyone enlighten me? Sep 19 08:09:13 which mail? ... but i doubt that lil old me will be able to enlighten you guys. Sep 19 08:09:45 http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=289974&view=rev Sep 19 08:10:24 Asunto: Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus Fecha: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:15:15 +0200 Sep 19 08:11:09 (23:06:27) rgardler: I disagree, navigation says nothing about the *content* it is meta-data but not to the content, it is meta-data to the site, therefore it is content in the rendered page -> that is exactly what I wrote -> it says something about the request in the current project Sep 19 08:12:23 it seems to me you're both saying the same thing: Sep 19 08:12:32 +1 Sep 19 08:12:34 ;-) Sep 19 08:12:40 o) external formats should normalize to xhtml2 Sep 19 08:12:48 SO what the hell are we discussing ;-) Time for a beer Sep 19 08:13:16 o) xhtml2 will be the source for other outputs (ie, it will be straight to html, pdf, etc. from xhtml2) Sep 19 08:13:34 o) and all "pieces" or contracts will be addressable Sep 19 08:13:46 +1 Sep 19 08:13:47 how to get it done Sep 19 08:13:56 views ;-) Sep 19 08:14:06 Tim, Godd summary of what I said in a much more verbose way ;-) Sep 19 08:14:26 (errr... "good summary" Sep 19 08:14:37 ross you and I should tell tim what we think and he summarize ;-) Sep 19 08:14:54 +10000 Sep 19 08:15:01 OK, so let me move to mysecond question: "what do we gain from doing a partial move to XHTML2 in core"? Sep 19 08:15:13 (i.e. input side only) Sep 19 08:15:52 i wasn't suggesting *that* partial solution Sep 19 08:16:16 * crossley goes to get coffee, back in a tick Sep 19 08:16:24 How do you see your suggestion being different? Sep 19 08:16:25 (22:38:59) crossley: 1) xdoc is a non-standard format. -> we have a standard format Sep 19 08:16:56 it's not a Standard format though (a la XHTML2, docbook, dita Sep 19 08:17:41 (23:17:12) twilliams_: it's not a Standard format though (a la XHTML2, docbook, dita->??? Sep 19 08:18:01 I thought xhtml2 should come out of a input plugin? Sep 19 08:18:12 it's not maintained by a standards body Sep 19 08:18:38 what do you mean Sep 19 08:18:54 huh? i thought that's what we just went through Sep 19 08:19:37 w3c, oasis, etc. maintain standards our documentv2whatever is maintained as best i can tell by david.. a consortium of one;) Sep 19 08:20:00 jeje Sep 19 08:20:11 :-) - pretty close to reality Sep 19 08:20:50 so we nned Sep 19 08:20:50 So, Thorsten, I missed your point again (back to you soon Tim) Sep 19 08:21:01 which point? Sep 19 08:21:15 (22:38:59) crossley: 1) xdoc is a non-standard format. -> we have a standard format Sep 19 08:21:28 (23:15:18) rgardler: OK, so let me move to mysecond question: "what do we gain from doing a partial move to XHTML2 in core"? Sep 19 08:21:34 ;-) Sep 19 08:21:48 now I se Sep 19 08:21:58 Ah... tha's obvious now - not used to you being succint ;-) Sep 19 08:22:02 should be we *will* gain a standard input Sep 19 08:22:32 OK, any other gains? Sep 19 08:22:33 ahhh... shucks... and you made me go through that for why? Sep 19 08:22:48 sorry Sep 19 08:22:57 :( Sep 19 08:23:33 (we need a babel fish so we can all talk in our native tongue) Sep 19 08:24:03 i am... still goofing it up i suppose;) Sep 19 08:24:30 OT did you see hitchikers guide to the galaxy? We need the fish Sep 19 08:24:43 Yeah, it was called a "babel fish" :-) Sep 19 08:24:58 :) was not sure you meant that ;-) Sep 19 08:25:06 +1 Sep 19 08:25:27 ok david Sep 19 08:25:39 what? Sep 19 08:25:40 your are still alive crossley? Sep 19 08:25:47 just Sep 19 08:25:49 your thoughts? Sep 19 08:26:00 about what sorry Sep 19 08:26:07 Drink the coffee man! Sep 19 08:26:19 ;-) Sep 19 08:26:41 still brewing Sep 19 08:26:56 Ahhh. the real stuff, you make me proud Sep 19 08:27:05 of course Sep 19 08:28:09 I'm just looking through the list of things we gain from XHTML2... Sep 19 08:28:33 In answer to the what do we get in a partial solution is "everything except a standardised interface" Sep 19 08:28:47 on the input *and* output that is Sep 19 08:29:10 Tim, you made some valid points in your proposal about doing too much in one go Sep 19 08:29:35 Given that Thorsten and I seem to agree (after a long disagreement) would you like to make any comments relating to that Sep 19 08:30:07 (23:29:52) rgardler: Given that Thorsten and I seem to agree (after a long disagreement) -> actually I reckon we always agreed Sep 19 08:30:16 only the way how to Sep 19 08:30:24 i've not disagreed with the goal, just the approach Sep 19 08:30:28 that is point odf discussion Sep 19 08:30:34 me too Sep 19 08:30:51 what you called "partial" i'm calling the first step of a "staged" solution Sep 19 08:31:08 because i think we can safely do alot of this now Sep 19 08:31:32 whereas, i think the views implementation isn't stable enough to start building in some of this Sep 19 08:31:48 ...and it is much work. All input plugins have now produce xhtml2 Sep 19 08:31:56 and.. to the extent possible it makes sense to allow each to mature in its own way Sep 19 08:32:36 and there's the obvious pragmatic concerns about everyone needing to make fairly siginificant changes to what comes down to a handful of files Sep 19 08:32:51 (23:31:48) twilliams_: whereas, i think the views implementation isn't stable enough to start building in some of this -> actually I disagree Sep 19 08:33:20 (lets not get diverted by the stability discussion - it's a different issue) Sep 19 08:33:28 the problem I see is that making them stable means that more active devs around them Sep 19 08:34:15 anyway Sep 19 08:34:16 views are pretty stable functionally... Sep 19 08:34:32 ...but? Sep 19 08:34:32 the reason i bring it up is the implementation of them may not be Sep 19 08:34:56 and the changes that would be necessary are dependent on the implementation Sep 19 08:35:24 Tim, there is no need for all plugins to switch over to XHTML2 at the same time given my approach - if they produce XDoc we simply pipe them into an XDoc input plugin which converts to XHTML2 Sep 19 08:35:43 i was going to say that Sep 19 08:35:55 that was thorsten, but i got side-tracked Sep 19 08:36:32 i think there is agreement on the input side Sep 19 08:36:40 OK Sep 19 08:36:41 at least from me Sep 19 08:37:03 Lets take a vote, are we in agreement that contracts need to accept XHTML2 as input? Sep 19 08:37:05 +1 from me Sep 19 08:37:11 (it's an informal vote) Sep 19 08:38:07 i meant the input side of *forrest*, not necessarily the input of contracts Sep 19 08:38:28 as in, "normalize to xhtml2" Sep 19 08:39:00 Yea, and since views are on the input side (see Thorstens and my mails) that means contracts need to be XHTML2 Sep 19 08:39:13 no Sep 19 08:39:24 Ahhh.... I thought we agreed that, please expand Sep 19 08:39:25 I never said this Sep 19 08:39:33 Yea, and since views are on the input side (see Thorstens and my mails) that means contracts need to be XHTML2 Sep 19 08:39:53 does not matter Sep 19 08:40:06 yes they need to accept xhtml2 Sep 19 08:40:09 +1 Sep 19 08:40:41 (David, you invented that Babel fish yet?) Sep 19 08:40:45 they conneting the input plugins but they are in core but like I set does not matter ;-) Sep 19 08:41:11 its not working Sep 19 08:41:19 OK, I see what you mean I agree with your thought and that for this topic it does not matter Sep 19 08:41:29 (David, give it Coffee) Sep 19 08:41:33 perhaps inserted back-to-front Sep 19 08:41:35 http://babelfish.altavista.com/ Sep 19 08:41:49 (it is in your ear right?) Sep 19 08:42:17 (maybe I should go to school and actually learn another language that might help) Sep 19 08:42:38 Ich denke, daß Thorsten recht ist Sep 19 08:42:49 :) Sep 19 08:42:50 lol Sep 19 08:42:58 recht hat ;-) Sep 19 08:44:24 ok how do we implement it? Sep 19 08:44:29 Where were we? Sep 19 08:44:43 Oh yeah...tscherler ok how do we implement it? Sep 19 08:45:14 we have now the xhtml2 plugin Sep 19 08:45:15 Tim, can you explain why you think the approach in the XHTML2 plugin is incorrect Sep 19 08:46:15 i haven't done very well at it so far Sep 19 08:46:24 :-( Sep 19 08:46:41 I understand your point about not taking on too much, my problem is that I don't see why it is more work Sep 19 08:47:30 say we get down this path and two weeks from now we decide that much of the views stuff should be in POJO Sep 19 08:47:44 and that changes the way contracts are written Sep 19 08:47:51 or templates are written Sep 19 08:48:21 why not just let views progress to where we want them to be independently instead of tying the two together Sep 19 08:48:45 Aha!!!! it clicked Sep 19 08:48:49 in other words, if we go down the current plugin's path, thorsten and crew will need to start also developing views in that plugin Sep 19 08:49:17 then we end up with a plugin that is essentially a replacement for forrest because it's grown so huge Sep 19 08:49:30 that *everything* and the kitchen sink has to be dragged in Sep 19 08:50:16 When I wrote the mail describing the approach... Sep 19 08:50:38 I started off saying that this is the first step towards moving from an pre-release Forrest to a 1.0 Forrest Sep 19 08:51:16 I took it out because I didn't want to reawaken the concerns that the XHTML2 plugin is doing too much in one go - it is not Sep 19 08:51:48 My intention is *only* to make the contracts take XHTML2 as input - something we are agreed on, and produce XHTML2 as output (I think we agreed that) Sep 19 08:52:16 The XML defining the contracts may change, but that is easy to sort out with a text editor Sep 19 08:52:21 and a few scripts Sep 19 08:52:36 stop Sep 19 08:52:45 tim thx Sep 19 08:52:49 OK Sep 19 08:52:55 you said so many true thing Sep 19 08:53:30 I felt *guilty* not applying my reccent changes to xhtml2 Sep 19 08:53:43 but I can not do that Sep 19 08:53:48 anyway Sep 19 08:54:12 contracts are changed within no time Sep 19 08:54:27 it does not matter which format is coming in Sep 19 08:54:45 even we can have two contracts for different format Sep 19 08:55:22 xhtml2 plugin should provide the document as xhtml2 Sep 19 08:55:33 that's it Sep 19 08:56:04 we do not need views in the xhtml2 for that Sep 19 08:56:30 it is a plugin Sep 19 08:57:22 you saying that "views" are one plugin? Sep 19 08:58:32 who? i haven't. i think they can't be only for practical reasons Sep 19 08:59:31 In my opinion: The *core* part of views is a single plugin, what we now call the structurer, the contracts are another plugin (or plugins) and themes are another Sep 19 09:00:10 tscherler just said "it is a plugin" ... i wondered what "it" meant. Sep 19 09:00:10 ok Sep 19 09:00:22 he meant the *new* one Sep 19 09:00:26 xhtml2 plugin Sep 19 09:00:38 ah thanks Sep 19 09:00:46 So, Thorsten, your conclusion please Sep 19 09:05:08 ummm... thorsten... you're on.... take the stage please...;) Sep 19 09:07:19 --> thorsten_ has joined #for-s2 Sep 19 09:07:25 argh Sep 19 09:07:38 wha d I meiss Sep 19 09:07:52 I got kick out and I am on a new client Sep 19 09:08:01 hello Sep 19 09:08:08 somebody there= Sep 19 09:08:15 rgardler So, Thorsten, your conclusion please Sep 19 09:08:29 yes we were waiting for you - you didn't miss anything Sep 19 09:08:35 when I got cut off? Sep 19 09:08:57 ok, i tried to make a funny Sep 19 09:09:09 twilliams_: ummm... thorsten... you're on.... take the stage please...;) Sep 19 09:09:50 what is the last sentence? Sep 19 09:09:55 we all felt like you were "leading up to a big conclusion" I suppose Sep 19 09:10:07 sorry my client trashed Sep 19 09:10:17 tscherler we do not need views in the xhtml2 for that Sep 19 09:10:17 tscherler it is a plugin Sep 19 09:10:28 ok Sep 19 09:10:28 that's where you left off Sep 19 09:10:35 thorsten this is the last thing that Ross said ... Sep 19 09:10:53