cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RT] ComponentizedProcessor (was RE: Migrating TreeProcessor to Fortress)
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:19:23 GMT
Bruno Dumon wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 12:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
>>Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>
>>>Unico Hommes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wild idea: context:/ identifies the current context, context:// 
>>>>identifies the root sitemap? Like in cocoon: protocol?
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>
>>>Great idea (again!). Currently, the "context:" protocol requires the 
>>>double-slash and links to the root sitemap, so we can implement this 
>>>additional behaviour with a single slash with no compatibility break. 
>>>And the similarity with "cocoon:" makes it easy to understand.
>>>
>>>This makes me think that "cocoon:" must also be be relative to the 
>>>"current" sitemap, and not that handling the request.
>>
>>BAD IDEA.
>>
>>Please, you are adding contracts to the URL spec that aren't there.
> 
> 
> Not really true. The basic structure of an URL is:
> 
> <scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>
> 
> and the interpretation of the scheme specific part depends on the
> scheme.
> 
> 
>>Instead I would highly encourage you to provide a way to set the base
>>URL where relative URLs would be resolved to.
>>
>>Work *with* the contract instead of extending it in non-intuitive ways.
>>
>>See my rant in another email.

Again see my rant in the other email.  There are HUGE differnces in the
way the URL is interpreted based on the existence of a repetitive character.
It should be more obvious than that.


And don't forget that URLs do have the concept of *resolving* relative
URLs.  THose are the contracts I am refering to.


Mime
View raw message