> > Do I make any sense?
>
> Yes, it makes very much sense... Look also at Stefano's proposal for XML
> extension wich will ease the development of a sitemap dramatically. The
> first "alpha" implementation will not support this, but as far as the
> sitemap proves itself as "working" the biggest concern will be on "how"
> to make it smaller and easier.
>
> > I think this way we would get _much_ smaller sitemaps, since we could
take
> > benefit of patterns in the sitemap design of the site.
>
> That's the effort that will be put after we have something working. But
> before that, I want to see it working :)

Ok. I'll wait!. You are probably right that the first priority should be to
have something working.

>
> > Another thing I miss in the sitemap proposal is some support for virtual
> > hosts. Since the sitemap is going to take control of all the translation
> > process i think it should also take care of virtualhosts, or at least
have
> > some support for them (diferrent files for different vhosts) or some
> > mechanism that avoids the need of one diferent cocoon and JVM for each
> > virtual host.
>
> About virtual hosts, these will be handled by the web server itself.
> Cocoon will become a "Web Application" as described by the Servlet 2.2
> spec.
>

I don't know the details of Servlet 2.2, so I'll have to take look on that
before understanding you. Anyway what I amb asking is.. will be Cocoon easy
to configure and use in the cases of many virtualhosts? I'm thinking in the
case of most hosting companies, which offer plans with a lot of cool stuff
(cgi, php, mysql, or even coldfusion...) but without having a dedicated
server for each costumer. Are ISP going to be able to offer Cocoon as a
extra service without too much pain? I think this is a important point,
since it could have strong effects in the popularity of Cocoon. I know
Cocoon is targetered to complex sites, but you should'nt completely forget
about small sites. And small sites are nearly always hosted in that kind of
hosting plans.


Angel.