Re: Re: [all] Requirements default publication

Andreas Hartmann <[email protected]> writes:

> have we already stated the purposes of this publication?
> a) low entry barrier
> b) best practise showcase (exploring for us and learning for others)
> c) show what's possible
> 
> I guess (b) is the main point, isn't it?

I think it is mainly b but could possibly be made into a.

> Document URI space
> ------------------
> - No predefined URI space
> - No URI-doctype mapping
> 
> So we will use sitetree framework + DoctypeMatcher?

I think we will have to do something along these lines.

> Doctypes
> --------
> - Two doctypes (as few as possible): simple content doctype and XHTML
>   doctype
> 
> I'm still against the XHTML doctype if this shall be a
> best-practise publication. I agree that this is useful to
> integrate existing content. But maybe we should point to the
> drawbacks of this approach?

Sure we can. It just seems that the XHTML doctype is a very pragmatic
approach which can simplify things.

> - No collection doctype (just navigation)
> 
> What is actually the difference? Do you mean that
> section overview pages etc. can't be created/web-edited/published
> etc. but only edited as XML?

I think the idea is to keep the publication as simple as possible and
therefor not even have a collection type, i.e. each page is either a
simple doc or a XHTML doc. That means that there are no section
overview pages. We could add this but it would complicate the
publication.
 
> - Homepage: simple content doctype
> 
> Here I could even imagine to use the XHTML "doctype". Homepages
> tend to be stylish and differ very much from the content pages.
> I wouldn't force the user to use the content doctype for the
> homepage (it tempts to tweak the doctype, I know this from
> cocooncenter).

Of course this is possible. I think again the point is that there is
no extra doc type for the home page.

> Simple content doctype
> ----------------------
> - Editable by Xopus and Bitflux
> - Elements:
> - Page Heading
> - Subtitle
> - Lead
> - Paragraph
> - Section heading
> - List
> - List item
> - Table
> - Table row
> - Table cell
> - Image
> - Image caption
> 
> Do we have such a schema? Otherwise - what about the Forrest doctype?

That was my original question also. Why don't we just take the forrest
doctype especially as there are people working on simplifying and
completing it as we speak (see forrest-dev list). But I suppose
there's an argument for keeping as simple as possible which is the
list of elements outlined above.

> XHTML doctype
> -------------
> - Editable with Xopus?
> 
> -1. There are enough good HTML editors.

Ok.

> Navigation
> ----------
> - Navigation is built automatically
> 
> I guess you mean the navigation elements are built
> from navigation files?

No, the intent is to add pages to the navigation as they are added to
the publication. I know this has problems when you start adding
hundreds of pages but again KISS.

> - Navigation folding (static)
> - Highlighting of current location
> 
> Components
> ----------
> - Site Tree Manager

Felix: What do you mean by "Site Tree Manager"?

> - Navigation Framework
> 
> I would add the search engine.

If it can be done simply, sure.

-- 
Christian Egli       [email protected]   +41 1 272 9161
                     Wyona AG, Hardstrasse 219, CH-8005 Zurich
Open Source CMS      http://www.wyona.org http://www.wyona.com