Mailing List Archive

David Crossley wrote:
> Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
>
>>Clay Leeds wrote:
>>
>>>Does it make sense to rename the following files:
>>>- book.xml => FORREST_book.xml (somewhat moot since it's deprecated)
>>>- site.xml => Forrest_site.xml
>>>- tabs.xml => forrest_tabs.xml
>>>(upper/lower case presented above highlight sort order possibilities)
>>>
>>
>>what about?
>>.book.xml
>>.site.xml
>>.tabs.xml
>
>
> That would be very confusing, because that makes those files
> invisible on UNIX systems. Imagine the constant stream of
> questions we would receive.
>

that is why I wanted to use a dot. in the same way you have .htaccess. I
am not sure if the httpd project get that stream of questions

On Nov 9, 2004, at 9:12 PM, Dave Brondsema wrote:
> All documents are now split between site-author and docs-author.
>
> *Please* feel free to adjust what I have done.
>
> I haven't done anything in regards to publishing. These have been
> source-only changes. If someone else wants to take this next step,
> that's great; else I'll probably be able to get to it in a couple
> days.

While we're in the mood for [HEADS-UP] msgs and moving docs around,
does it make sense to pre-pend Forrest-specific docs with "Forrest_*"
or "for_*"? I recently had an issue on fop-dev (here's the thread[1])
where a naming conflict caused by Forrest's choice of generic filenames
caused a problem (of course, the chicken or the egg argument could say
xml-fop shouldn't have a file name identical to an established Forrest
file name).

In any case I recall a problem in the past where site.html & site.pdf
were renamed to wholesite.html & wholesite.pdf for similar reasons.

Does it make sense to rename the following files:
- book.xml => FORREST_book.xml (somewhat moot since it's deprecated)
- site.xml => Forrest_site.xml
- tabs.xml => forrest_tabs.xml
(upper/lower case presented above highlight sort order possibilities)

Among other benefits, all of the files would 'sort' together, making
them easier to spot (currently they get 'lost' if there are lots of
files in the s*.xml range. This is relatively low priority, but if a
change were to be made, the sooner the better.

[1] fop-dev - book.xml filename issue
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=110003532412850&w=2

Web Maestro Clay
--
Clay Leeds - <cleeds@medata.com>
Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - <http://www.medata.com/>
PGP Public Key: <https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc>

Dave Brondsema wrote:
> All documents are now split between site-author and docs-author.
>
> *Please* feel free to adjust what I have done.

Thanks a million for getting that big step done.

> I haven't done anything in regards to publishing. These have been
> source-only changes. If someone else wants to take this next step,
> that's great; else I'll probably be able to get to it in a couple days.
>
> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >> /site-author
> >> forrest.properties
> >> status.xml
> >> content/**
> >>
> >> /docs-author
> >> forrest.properties
> >> status.xml
> >> content/**
> >>
> >
> > Which status.xml should hold the current content? The other will be
> > mostly empty, I presume.
>
> I chose docs-author since there were lots of links in status.xml to
> files in docs-author.

That is where the real "Changes" doc should be anyway,
so i think you made the correct choice.

--
David Crossley

Clay Leeds wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2004, at 9:12 PM, Dave Brondsema wrote:
>
>> All documents are now split between site-author and docs-author.
>>
>> *Please* feel free to adjust what I have done.
>>
>> I haven't done anything in regards to publishing. These have been
>> source-only changes. If someone else wants to take this next step,
>> that's great; else I'll probably be able to get to it in a couple days.
>
>
> While we're in the mood for [HEADS-UP] msgs and moving docs around, does
> it make sense to pre-pend Forrest-specific docs with "Forrest_*" or
> "for_*"?

We are restructuring our docs, not the Forrest internal naming. .

In any case your suggestion, albeit in a slight different manner, will
be followed (see the Plugin thread going on now).

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Clay Leeds wrote:
>
> Does it make sense to rename the following files:
> - book.xml => FORREST_book.xml (somewhat moot since it's deprecated)
> - site.xml => Forrest_site.xml
> - tabs.xml => forrest_tabs.xml
> (upper/lower case presented above highlight sort order possibilities)
>

what about?
.book.xml
.site.xml
.tabs.xml

Cheers,
Cheche

On Nov 10, 2004, at 2:46 AM, Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Clay Leeds wrote:
>> Does it make sense to rename the following files:
>> - book.xml => FORREST_book.xml (somewhat moot since it's deprecated)
>> - site.xml => Forrest_site.xml
>> - tabs.xml => forrest_tabs.xml
>> (upper/lower case presented above highlight sort order possibilities)
>
> what about?
> .book.xml
> .site.xml
> .tabs.xml
>
> Cheers,
> Cheche

That would be fine. I am hoping Forrest can avert other, 'more
challenging' potential issues in the future.

Web Maestro Clay
--
Clay Leeds - <cleeds@medata.com>
Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - <http://www.medata.com/>
PGP Public Key: <https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc>

Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Clay Leeds wrote:
> >
> > Does it make sense to rename the following files:
> > - book.xml => FORREST_book.xml (somewhat moot since it's deprecated)
> > - site.xml => Forrest_site.xml
> > - tabs.xml => forrest_tabs.xml
> > (upper/lower case presented above highlight sort order possibilities)
> >
>
> what about?
> .book.xml
> .site.xml
> .tabs.xml

That would be very confusing, because that makes those files
invisible on UNIX systems. Imagine the constant stream of
questions we would receive.

--
David Crossley