[Zope-CMF] Multilingual site with CMF/Plone?
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:03:44 -0800
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:10:55PM +0100, Erik Lange wrote:
> At 05:17 PM 2/12/03, Paul Winkler wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:53:22AM +0100, Erik Lange wrote:
> >> >> Well, if the CMF is ugly / broken / incorrect or doesn't do what we
> >> >> I'm sure your suggestion or improvements will be appreciated.
> >> >
> >> >CMF Default != CMF
> >> Hmm.. did I say anything about CMF Default above ?
> >Yes. "if the CMF is ugly" implies CMFDefault, because
> >CMFCore does not look like anything.
> Sorry, that was not what I meant.. I'm aware of the difference ;-)
But you continue to write as if you're not.
> The statement "if the CMF is ugly / broken / incorrect or doesn't do what
> we want" is a quote from one of Andy's ealier posts...
ah sorry, i was confused by that out of context. I was interpreting
"ugly" too literally, i assumed it was about look+feel.
> What I'm trying to say is, that most people aren't aware that Plone has
> chosen another path, and therefore aren't aware of the difference between
> the CMF Default implementaion and Plone's implementation.
i agree that this can be confusing. I appreciate you trying
to help clear this up.
> If Plone really is going in another direction, I think this should be made
> clear and documented, so it doesn't come as a suprise to new users, when
> they are trying to use products that are bulid "the old fashion way".
alternatively, the fact that CMFDefault is not in any way
standard or privileged should "be made clear and documented",
because when you develop a product that targets CMFDefault you are
only targeting a particular implementation on top of CMFCore and you
should not assume that all other layers on top of CMFCore will be compatible.
IMO this will be greatly helped if we go down the path Seb Bacon suggested:
CMFDefault should be unbundled from CMFCore.
> started out being just a skin for CMF
a skin for CMFDefault. you did it again! ;-)
> - now it's a hole new CMF
> implementation, but is still seen as some nice looking skins and some
> ekstra functions to the raw standard CMF.
Once again - there is no "standard CMF" except CMFCore.
CMFDefault is not "standard".
I kind of wish it was still called "Demo" instead of "Default",
because isn't that what it is - a demo? not that it isn't useful,
just that it's not supposed to be conceptually part of the core.
> Just look at the subject of this thread: "... CMF/Plone" implies, that
> there is no difference in the implementation,
I disagree, I think CMF/Plone implies a relationship not an identity.
Look! Up in the sky! It's THE PUMA!
(random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)