[Zope-dev] HiperDOM & xmlc

[Dieter Maurer]

Shane Hathaway writes:
 > lalo@hackandroll.org wrote:
 > > The only thing I _don't_ feel good about this kind of template
 > > is that, in practice, we will probably lose the benefits of
 > > things like <dtml-var standard_html_header> - meaning, when you
 > > want to change the header of your site, you'll have to edit all
 > > your templates.
 > 
 > I agree this is a problem, and speaking from experience, changing all
 > templates is not an acceptable compromise.  For www.zope.org that would
 > mean including the standard template in nearly every page, everywhere,
 > because the pages on www.zope.org are nearly all "templates"
 > themselves.  We would lose one of the primary benefits of Zope.
 > 
 > Another unacceptable compromise is including a variant of
 > standard_html_header and _footer on every page (as is done now).  One
 > reason is because it is not possible to write
 > standard_html_header/_footer using well-formed XML.  The header begins
 > the "html" tag, while the footer ends it.  In fact, most sites these
 > days put the beginning of a table in _header and the end of the table in
 > _footer.  Objects containing non-well-formed XML aren't compatible with
 > a DOM-based solution.
 > 
 > This has been one of the points of discussion here at DC.  The only
 > reasonable solution we've come up with is automatically wrapping the
 > results of the rendering in an acquired object with a fixed name such as
 > standard_page_template.
 > 
 > The other solution that I have tried to wrestle with is introducing some
 > kind of multiple view system with automatic selection of the default
 > view.  But in reality, the standard_page_template solution would make
 > the multiple view system possible as well.
 > 
 > So what does everyone think?  Is standard_page_template the right thing
 > to do?  Is there a better way?  Help!
I did not (yet) look at HiperDOM and xmlc. Nor am I familiar
with dreamweaver and friends.
Thus, maybe, I should not speak up.

If one is really interested in a separation of content and
presentation (which I feel is good), then the "standard_html_*"
were wrong in the first place. It forces the
content author to prepare for presentation.
The "page_template" proposal is much better in this respect,
as it is external to the content.
Of cause, there should be a way to select between different
page templates and not be bound to a fixed template (already
mentioned by a previous responder).

The other question deals with template modularity.
If a single modification should influence several templates,
then this is best addressed by building the templates out of
modules. The modification of a module then affects all
templates that use it.

Modularization would be possible if e.g. XSLT is
used for presentation. I do not know, whether Dreamweaver
has a modularization concept. I hope so.

The current "header/footer" fragments are not optimal wrt.
modularization, as tightly coupled stuff ("footer" must close
everything that "header" opened) is separated into
different objects. It is much better to have a module
that contains both the page prolog and epilog
and a placeholder for the actual content, maybe filled in with
sample text that later is replaced by the content, i.e.
a page template.
It is good that you are forced to use well formed XML
in your modules.


Dieter