Re: yeararchives (2)

> I know I just replied to this email, but I re-read this and the other
> yeararchives thread and I think there are some other issues, too.

Oops, I have already pushed one of the patches. Sorry for that, I will
have to think about your concerns.

> yeararchives should handle all of the following urls:
>
>    /2003

http://sspaeth.de/cgi-bin/pyblosxom.cgi/2003 shows the year overview,
handled by yeararchives. So we are fine there. We will still need the
cb_staticrender_filelist I think though, how would the staticrenderer know
which URLs to render otherwise?

>    /2003/

http://sspaeth.de/cgi-bin/pyblosxom.cgi/2003/

is a 404 (which is weird, as I *think* it should be equivalent to 2003/index
so I will need to look into this.

>    /2003/index

http://sspaeth.de/cgi-bin/pyblosxom.cgi/2003/index
Does work, but is handled by the pyblosxom handler, not by the plugin. I
agree that pushing that down to the yeararchives plugin would make sense.
And I will look in doing so. It might require some "bigger" changes though
and I don't want to impose that just before a 1.5 release. Can we agree to
postpone this to 1.6 (or 1.5.1 or whatever?)

>    /2003/index.flavour
this does work but is handled by the pyblosxom handler, so we might want
to look into pushing this into the plugin as well.

> And the variants with ?flav=flavour, too.

?flav=flavour already worked before as the pyblosxom handler sets
data[flavour] correctly for that. So that is covered.


To sum it up: I am going to look into how to move all the date URLS from
the pyblosxom core into the yeararchives plugin if you agree that this
makes sense (I do think so). ONe question remains: should the pyblosxom
handler be better at detecting .flavour appendixes and setting the
data["flavour"] variable or should the plugins try to handle that
themselves? What is a good strategy for detecting ".flavour" rather than
raw urls such as ".txt"?

I rather stop now, I am sitting in a brewery in Seattle and I am afraid I
am writing nonsense if I continue now. Let me reread and think about this
tomorrow....

Sebastian

P.S. Let me just repeat, this is 1.6 material not 1.5 fixup stuff, right?
So should we create a 1.5 "stable" branch or simply wait until 1.5 is
released?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------