cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Bastardized URL protocol (was Re: [RT] ComponentizedProcessor)
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:50:33 GMT
Bruno Dumon wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 12:19, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>>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.
> 
> 
> I somewhat agree with your rant, but I don't see the situation in Cocoon
> changing any time soon since it would break backwards compatibility. I
> find the cocoon:/ versus cocoon:// convenient to use though.

If I recall, I raised a hissy fit then too--I really don't like it.

> 
> BTW, there was a little error in your rant:
> context://path/to/current/context/ should have been
> context:///path/to/current/context/

See what I mean?

And yes, I find this to be even more troublesome.

Just how many forward slashes do you really need?

> 
> 
>>And don't forget that URLs do have the concept of *resolving* relative
>>URLs.  THose are the contracts I am refering to.
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's still up to the scheme to specify if it follows those
> contracts or not.
> 

They are there, and well understood--is there a compelling reason *not*
to use them?


Mime
View raw message