[Zope3-dev] Axe DTML Document

[Paul Everitt]

We *nearly* did this for Zope 2.5.  We wanted a Document Document, not a 
DTML Document.  A Document that acted more like CMF Document: got its 
formatting imposed on it (rather than requiring includes at the top and 
bottom), focused on content rather than programming, etc.

When we realized what we were getting into, we deferred.  Namely, we 
didn't want to invent a temporary Document to compete with CMF Document 
when it was time to do a Zope3 Document.

So now it's time for Zope3.  We need a Document.  We need someone to 
make a Document.  I nominate Casey. :^)

--Paul

Casey Duncan wrote:

> This is another one of those "though of it while brushing my teeth[tm]" 
> things...
> 
> Zope 3 will be de-emphasizing the role of DTML. And will in fact discourage 
> it's ubiquitous usage, providing the obvious advantages of ZPT and Py scripts 
> in its place. Zope 3 will in fact not even have DTML capabilities until 
> later in the development cycle as I understand it.
> 
> One of the main stumbling blocks conceptually to newbies is understanding the 
> subtleties of DTML Documents vs. DTML Methods. Now, having done a fair bit of 
> Zope training, I can just tell you how the eyes glaze over and the heads nod 
> involuntarily when I reach this discussion in a class.
> 
> So, in the Zope 3 world, do we really need two DTML object types anymore? I 
> think the answer is no. So, which one do you get rid of?
> 
> Well I think DTML Document is the more troublesome and more specialized of 
> the two. It encourages some behavior that I think we all want to avoid: the 
> mixing of content, presentation and logic all in one. It is also less 
> versatile since it cannot be used as a general method of other objects.
> 
> So, that leaves us with DTML method, which I would argue is the bare essense 
> of the needed functionality. Granted you could use it for evil as well, but I 
> think it is less prone to that. Now, I might also suggest that the name "DTML 
> Method" suggests usage beyond what we now consider prudent. I might suggest a 
> consideration of changing the name to "DTML Template". I know this 
> complicates backward compatibility a good bit, but I think that can be 
> accommodated other ways.
> 
> So, what about those die-hard stalwart "I want my DTML Document" partisans? 
> Well I propose that it would be fairly trivial to provide a product which 
> resurrects the DTML Documents for those of us who cannot live without it or 
> have tons of existing content stored in them. It could also return "DTML 
> Method" to its former meta type for backward compatibility.
> 
> /---------------------------------------------------\
>   Casey Duncan, Sr. Web Developer
>   National Legal Aid and Defender Association
>   c.duncan@nlada.org
> \---------------------------------------------------/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev@zope.org
> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-dev
>