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
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:35:55 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> 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.
>>  
>>
> 
> +1. And since it perfectly matches the "cocoon://" vs "cocoon:/" 
> difference, I think this will be the most easy to understand rather than 
> "context://" vs "sitemap://".

Sigh.  I'm not going to force you guys not to make the same mistake again.
It seems I am the only one who doesn't like it, even though I strongly
encourage at least stripping out *one* of the forward slashes so that a
relative URI has no forward slashes at the beginning at all.

Do what you will.


Mime
View raw message