cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <>
Subject Re: Bastardized URL protocol
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:37:06 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> On 12 Nov 2003, at 17:18, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>> Variable scoping aside, do you have any suggestion on how to solve 
>>> the protocol issue?
>>> -- 
>>> Stefano, who reached a point where rants look like a very 
>>> inefficient way of solving problems
>> As I mentioned in another email, leverage the xml:base="" attribute 
>> part of
>> the XML spec.  That provides the base URI with which all relative 
>> URIs would
>> be resolved.  It's dead simple, obvious, and less error prone than 
>> one slash
>> vs. two.  Best of all, we don't bastardize any specs.
> Now, we introduced the ** syntax for matchers and I think it was one 
> of the greatest innovations in easy-to-use path-oriented query 
> syntaxes, althought non standard. Nobody ever complained and I don't 
> think it's because they are too shy to tell us.


> The only potential solution I see is something like
>  <generate src="cocoon:/path" xml:base="/">
>  <generate src="cocoon:/path" xml:base=".">

I think that would not be correct usage of the xml:base... Correct usage 
would be something like:
  <generate src="path" xml:base="cocoon:/">
  <generate src="path" xml:base="cocoon:">  <!-- or xml:base="cocoon:." -->


> but I'm not sure this makes things any easier or bugs any more 
> evident. For sure, it's more verbose and for back compatibility, we 
> still need to support cocoon://
> Thoughts?

Any of the above does not look neither elegant nor easier. I'd keep the 
approach we have right now.


View raw message