-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 15.02.2009 17:03 Uhr, Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Log message for revision 96569: Lot's of updates over the weekend! I think it is too premature to be moving the DTML chapters out of the book: if we arent just updating the book to be current with 2.12, then we probably need to discuss what kind of book we want, before chopping it apart. OK. I wasn't too sure either. I can put them back in, but make it clearer that using ZPT is preferred over DTML for all tasks where it is possible.
I would rather make the case, explaining the tradeoffs, including the fact that the consensus of the community is as you express, but then let people make up their own minds.
DTML is *not* like ZClasses: it isn't bitrotting through lack of use, nor is it scheduled (or ever) likely to be removed from Zope2. Please keep in mind the ZMI / TTW focus of the current book, while you're at it: this book is not aimed at Python / filesystem developers at all, but at casual users working on simple TTW apps.
+1. DTML is still a 1st-class citizen of Zope 2. So the DTML documentation should remain in place. Both related DTML chapters should perhaps get a clear preface containing something like the following and/or somehow marked as "obsolete" Zope techology (obsolete in the sense that we're having better alternatives): - ZPT is the preferred and recommended way for generating HTML or markup-ish output - DTML playing only a role for ZSQL methods - DTML might be used for generating text-ish content (non-HTML, non-XML content) - DTML should really only be used if there are no other alternatives (for ZSQL methods we have SQLAlchemy based integration layers) Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkmYQlkACgkQCJIWIbr9KYwvuACgjY9S9wrZmqG9mokQxP3PdpaL x0cAnRuHUHthOapIc5zPNoipX+LMP6hm =s/Yr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----