Mailing List Archive

David Wheeler wrote:
> >>How do you feel about having separate concepts and interfaces for
> >>document definition and element definition?
> >
> >I don't see it as being all that bad. I'd rather leave this
> >the way it is..
>
> Hrm. Well, take a look at the RFC I submitted and see how it feels.

Well, I've re-read v4 and the notion of having a seperate
interface for top-level element definitions is the only
thing that seems questionable to me at this point. As you
say it's a UI issue so it will come up later, but I'd still
like to understand why it is that you want to do this.

Can you try to explain briefly what problem you are trying
to solve by seperating them in the UI?

Thanks!


Mark

--
--
=================================================================
-- mark at geekhive dot net --


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Bricolage-General mailing list
Bricolage-General@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bricolage-general

On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 05:03 AM, Mark Jaroski wrote:

> Well, I've re-read v4 and the notion of having a seperate
> interface for top-level element definitions is the only
> thing that seems questionable to me at this point. As you
> say it's a UI issue so it will come up later, but I'd still
> like to understand why it is that you want to do this.

I'm pleased that that's the only thing that's questionable. It's a
relatively minor point, so I consider this quite an achievement. :-)

> Can you try to explain briefly what problem you are trying
> to solve by seperating them in the UI?

Did you see this yesterday?

> Again, it's something we can put off. But I think it'd be beneficial
> in 1) simplifying the assignment of permissions; and 2) Separating the
> thing that can have elements from the element system. So there's the
> element system and you can add elements to documents, categories, or
> contributors -- and they're all managed through a separate interface
> from element administration.
>
> In short, there are elements, and the things you can associate
> elements with.

I think that it's this last line that's really the clincher for me.

David

--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david@wheeler.net ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: Theory@jabber.org



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Bricolage-General mailing list
Bricolage-General@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bricolage-general

David Wheeler wrote:
> >Again, it's something we can put off. But I think it'd be beneficial
> >in 1) simplifying the assignment of permissions; and 2) Separating the
> >thing that can have elements from the element system. So there's the
> >element system and you can add elements to documents, categories, or
> >contributors -- and they're all managed through a separate interface
> >from element administration.
> >
> >In short, there are elements, and the things you can associate
> >elements with.
>
> I think that it's this last line that's really the clincher for me.

OK. I guess I'm following your logic there. Sure, why not.
Let's leave it somewhat up for discussion though.


--
--
=================================================================
-- mark at geekhive dot net --


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Bricolage-General mailing list
Bricolage-General@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bricolage-general

On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 08:43 AM, Mark Jaroski wrote:

>>> In short, there are elements, and the things you can associate
>>> elements with.
>>
>> I think that it's this last line that's really the clincher for me.
>
> OK. I guess I'm following your logic there. Sure, why not.
> Let's leave it somewhat up for discussion though.

Just a quick example, and then I'll shut up. Say you've created an
element, "personal info". You might create a document type called
"Interview" and make it a subelement. But you might also want to use
the same subelement as part of a Contributor Type. The same element is
useful as part of different Bricolage objects. So the upshot is, you
have this generally useful object, Element, and you can attach elements
to any of several other Bricolage objects -- Documents, Contributors,
Categories, etc.

That's all I'm saying. :-)

Best,

David

--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david@wheeler.net ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: Theory@jabber.org



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Bricolage-General mailing list
Bricolage-General@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bricolage-general

David Wheeler wrote:
> Just a quick example, and then I'll shut up. Say you've created an
> element, "personal info". You might create a document type called
> "Interview" and make it a subelement. But you might also want to use
> the same subelement as part of a Contributor Type. The same element is
> useful as part of different Bricolage objects. So the upshot is, you
> have this generally useful object, Element, and you can attach elements
> to any of several other Bricolage objects -- Documents, Contributors,
> Categories, etc.

OK. Yeah, I see the point. I think it's a fairly academic
distinction, but if you really think it will make it easier
for users to grok, then cool. It doesn't really make any
actual difference except in that we'll have two different
UIs to maintain for the same thing.




--
--
=================================================================
-- mark at geekhive dot net --


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Bricolage-General mailing list
Bricolage-General@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bricolage-general