Talk:Web template system/Archive 1

message: === Review tables on out-side server systems ===
Template systems. like on Dreamweaver, must be alanysed first.
=== Add itens on Server-side systems table ===
Add other web template systems (described on wikipedia). Candidates to web template systems:
Candidate       	Is/Not	status       	Conclusions and notes
CakePHP         	?     	need to check	
Catalyst        	?     	need to check	
Fusebox         	?     	need to check	
JavaServer Faces	NOT   	reviewed     	Apache Struts and Webwork2 are currently the most popular web oriented MVC implementations.
Mach-II         	?     	need to check	
Maypole         	?     	need to check	
Model-Glue      	?     	need to check	for ColdFusion Link
OpenXava        	NOT   	reviewed     	have integration of reports made with JasperReports (that use Jakarta Velocity and VTL - Velocity Template Language)
Radicore        	?     	need to check	For either PHP 4 or 5
Ruby on Rails   	?     	need to check	Is a "general template language" like PHP?
Symfony         	?     	need to check	
Tapestry        	?     	need to check	
TurboGears      	?     	need to check	for python, with AJAX.
XML Sapiens     	?     	need to check	
=== Expand stubs ===
* Web template system#Massive production
* Web template system#Distributed systems
:Changed massive to 'mass-production', if that causes problems I can change it back, but may be more clear with latter usage. dr.ef.tymac 03:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: * Web template system#Massive production
* Web template system#Distributed systems
:Changed massive to 'mass-production', if that causes problems I can change it back, but may be more clear with latter usage. dr.ef.tymac 03:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand stubs 

message: Used "controled" terms:
* Content and Content resource (see URI for resource) 
NOT used terms:
* Not use the term data model to substitute the terms Content and Content resource:
*# It is Web, and W3C and others prefer to use the term Content, about "content on documents" (not "data on documents"... it is Content-centric). 
*# A data model need Structure. Integrity, Manipulation, Querying... is more simple say that a set of variables are Content than Data model.
*# This article was here since October 2005 with the term Content: it is stable and many other linkted articles use the term.
*# Is better say "input data" (for process) than say "input model" (it is like to say "input model information")... Example: a "vCard DTD" have the data model information, a "vCard data" have the specific vCard information.
:: Agree on use of "content", however prohibiting use of "data model" is a problem because the "M" in MVC stands for "Model". We need to work together to determine a way to allow mutual use of these terms, they are both fundamental. dr.ef.tymac 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon options (synonymous and similar concepts) 

message: We must take care with changes on: 
* basic concepts: it unstabilize the "conceptual structure" of the article.
* basic terminology: it was stable, links and terminological consistence depends on it.
* figures: that is used to represent basic concepts!
-- Krauss 23 November 2006
:Agreed, I identified some elements of the stable terminology that had some minor mistakes, overlap of pre-existing material, or potential confusion, asked Krauss basic questions and he provided enough detail for me to fix a lot of that up. I updated some figures for apperance, and enhancement of didactic content. Krauss and Dreftymac will continue to work on these to improve consistency as well. We have worked together on some elements of the new figure style. Additional standardizations and refinements for these are expected in the immediate future. (see e.g., User_talk:Dreftymac/WebTemplateDiscussion#Images)dr.ef.tymac 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic structure and concepts 

message: * Remove, on Intro, "A web template system is a specific kind of template processor ...". If the template system  IS a template processor, we NOT NEED THIS ARTICLE. See Talk about use of the SYSTEM term.  -- Krauss 24 November 2006
* Remove, on Overview,  "One or more web templates on input". The formal definition is about 1 template... if we need more, we process more... 1 per web document (URL). -- Krauss 24 November 2006
* Reverted picture: the new was only a copy (spam?) from Template processor, not adapted to:  1) The basic concepts fixed here;  2) Another illustrations (see architectures), they are compatible. 3) The picture have 2 outputs to show what it does, for didactic -- Krauss 24 November 2006
* Review concepts on introduction/overview: I think now is better (merged with another edits) and clean -- Krauss 24 November 2006
:AwardingEmeraldsToward: Updated picture, for 1) and 3) above (very good ideas); 2) still left but IMHO doesn't harm article quality.dr.ef.tymac 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Review/Revert/Adapt = please comment 

message: Rationale:
I have not found any references that use the term "hook" in the same sense, but there
do seem to be other (potentially confusing) different uses of the term:
* a way to interface with version control   ;; http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-03/0956.shtml
* a way to specify namespaces               ;; http://api.drupal.org/api/HEAD/group/hooks
* a method of using CSS class names to organize content ;; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Layout_architecture_of_MediaWiki_pages
-- ?
: The term "hook" is about the red marks on Web_template#Hook_compatibility_strategies illustration... if it is not the "correct term", we need change ONLY if somebody show another "authoritative" term. I think (and generically refer) as "notation"... a specific syntax or notation for "to separate languages" (template language and output language).  Sorry I don't remember WHERE I see the use of the term, but I see because changed from "separation mark".  -- Krauss 27 November
::The parr article you cite identifies this as "lexical delimiters" (see sec. 5 paragraph 8). Unless you disagree with this, I will make the appropriate changes to the terminology so it is more consistent with the article. dr.ef.tymac 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stabilized terminology on "hook" with link references to (synonym) terminology, 'hook' provides enough uniqueness for this article, and links provide authoritative consistency with parr article and other WP links. dr.ef.tymac 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify specification of "hook" terminology 

message: I have concerns about application of the Chomsky hierarchy whether it is entirely correct. 
I have no plans to change the 'formalism' page, but you apply the hierarchy all throughout
the article and in places where it simply does not seem to fit. I address this in the "basic
questions".
-- ??
: Please, take a overview on the unique and fundamental citation: Parr article (see "Template Definition" section).  -- Krauss 27 November 2006
::I read the parr article quite a while ago and reviewed it recently. If you can address the basic questions (at least ignore the one on the Chomsky hierarchy and address your definition of what "is" and "is not" template, which does not seem to be in the article) this will help me to focus on which content needs to go where when i make additions. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language hierarchy and template language treatment 

message: NOTE: One of the topic headers was specified as "level one", which meant all new discussions started with the "alt plus" sequence were being included as children of that node (even if that was not the intent of the editor). Fixed it by changing it to "level two" dr.ef.tymac 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed bug on this discussion page 

message: These seem to be agreed by all contributing to these articles:
* the parr citation is an authoritative ref and good support for article content;
*: Ok  -- krauss 28 November 2006
* the terminology and formal treatment sections are still big TODO; 
*: Yes, let organize CENTRALIZE Talk about this, see Talk:Web template system (terminology).  -- krauss 28 November 2006
** Dreftymac created break-out page on terminology; 
**: Consider that moving "basic concepts" from here to a very "peripheral position" is like to DELETE then. -- krauss 28 November 2006
**:: This may be one interpretation, but assuming good faith, I think it is a good compromise as long as all the re-positioned content is easy to find and appropriately linked. I'm sure it wasn't your intent to "delete" content when you created peripheral pages for earlier content that was contributed to these articles, hopefully that won't ever be the intent. Please see "Working, Planning and Participation" ideas below. dr.ef.tymac 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the important concept definitions need to go back in, I left a comment in the wikicode and also mentioned this on the terminology talk page. It is just a matter of choosing for the "compressed version" as you stated. Pls see goals of this article discussion. dr.ef.tymac 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These seem like noteworthy suggestions, with a few qualifications (see also, working and planning below):
* If "objectives" and "dependencies" are placed on the talk page of an article (as opposed to inside the article itself, or on someone's user pages) then this means the talk "threading" system does not work in the manner of "talk in nested thread, archive page when it gets too big, each node in a single thread signed by original author" ... 
* If a "road map" is constructed, and new editors come to the article who are 1)unfamiliar with the roadmap; or 2)opposed to one or more elements of the roadmap; or 3)capable of understanding and meaningfully contributing to the article, but not capable of understanding or contributing to the roadmap, what about them?
* What are the implications of creating a "road map" as far as creating the perception that someone "owns" the article? Could this discourage participation from potentially qualified and expert people who mistakenly believe the article is 'off limits' to them because they didn't have a 'vote' in creating the roadmap?
* Similar issues with using talk pages to fix consensus and using it as a "TODO" or checklist; this seems like a very tricky issue. How have other editors on WP handled these issues. Anyone?
dr.ef.tymac 17:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006-11-27  ;; Points of consensus, agreement, stability 

message: Things that I appreciate about this article series: 
* The contributing editors have lots of content and enthusiasm about the topic;
* There is coverage and discussion of even advanced material, and the material is taken seriously; 
* It's all done in an "open" context just like the rest of WP; 
* The participants have displayed a high degree of professionalism, even though this is a volunteer project; 
Things that present some difficulty:
* The talk pages seem to take on a unique structure, making it difficult to predict how the pages will behave from a "functionality standpoint" ... this can happen when header levels are changed; 
* The content on talk pages sometimes gets reorganized, paraphrased, and moved around, thus causing problems from a "continuity standpoint" (new participants to the discussion may find it difficult or impossible to follow what was going on previously); 
* The content on talk pages sometimes gets "signed" irregularly, or using different methods (i.e., other than "four tilde" dr.ef.tymac 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working, Planning and Participation