- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 06:29:45 +0200
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Cc: public-qa-dev@w3.org
* Terje Bless wrote: >The report_foo() subs are not that important. They don't need to be easily >modifiable, they can be externally restyled (CSS or XSL), and they don't need >l10n. They may get moved out at some point but it's not a priority. Well, string constants take a lot of space, the inline markup is about 20% of the character data in check and way more than that in terms of lines. They make it very difficult to read the source code and the sooner they are hidden elsewere the better. We should also see how to fit alternate formats into the template system, we might want to adopt e.g. XHTML 2.0 so maybe a directory structure like templates/xhtml/en_US/... templates/xhtml2/en_US/... templates/earl/... ... might make sense. But I agree that the report_x(...) subs are not all that important, I am more concerned about those in add_warning calls, for example. >Right now it looks like most of the remaining inline code will still be there >for 0.7. One way of dealing with it is to just dump it to a template to get it >out of the way, but my intent has been to leave this off for when we have a >decent l10n framework in place to do it right. I doubt we'll get such a thing soon, so I'd prefer not to wait for that. >You've reminded me that authenticate(), for one, can just as well be nuked >right away. Likely several of the others can as well, with no impact on any >l10n framework we may or may not get to in the near future. I should note that authenticate() does not work at all in the current code (it does not seem to proxy headers) and the template stuff gets appended to the authenticate() output which makes the document invalid and stuff...
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 04:30:34 UTC