cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Bastardized URL protocol (was Re: [RT] ComponentizedProcessor)
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:31:26 GMT
Bruno Dumon wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 12:50, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
>>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?
> 
> 
> Ah, I wasn't clear enough: the three slashes are what you are asking
> for, not what the situation currently is. According to the standard URL
> path notation, the part after the first two slashes identifies the
> authority (hostname usually). You see, seems like even the standard
> isn't known well enough ;-) (or else I misunderstood the intend of your
> remark)
> 

The intent of the remark is to use a different standard than how many times
the "/" character is used to differentiate between absolute and relative
urls.  It is a bug waiting to happen--and you won't hear much about it because
everyone will be too embarrassed about the mistake.

THe secondary intent of the remark is to advocate a sort of xml:base="" (which
is a standard) to resolve relative URLs.

For example the path "foo/bar/baz.xml" can be resolved with a "context://" URL
if the xml:base is set with that in mind.  Alternatively, you can use
"cocoon://" or whatever.

It is more clear, as well as more flexible.



Mime
View raw message