cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <>
Subject Re: Bastardized URL protocol
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:57:47 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>Just because we have one protocol that is messed up and we can't change it
>>doesn't mean we should make the same mistakes.
> True.
>>For the Context protocol, I highly recommend doing something other than
>>the one slash vs. two approach used for the "cocoon" protocol.
>>*Something* doesn't have to mean using the xml:base approach
>>outlined above.
>>But it does mean that we shouldn't repeat the same mistake.
> Sorry, I haven't followed the whole discussion, so this might have been
> already discussed: why can't we use a new protocol, e.g. "sitemap:",
> so context:// is the context :), and sitemap:// resolves relative
> to the current sitemap?
> Even using context:// and context:/ is fine for me. Users are used
> to it anyway, even if it might not be the most perfect syntax.
> But I'm against a more complicated way of doing this.

IMNSHO, context: and context:/ are much clearer than context:/ and context://.
IOW a relative URI should never have a beginning slash.  It is easier to spot
a mistake when it is between a character that is not there at all vs. not enough

View raw message