cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Unico Hommes" <Un...@hippo.nl>
Subject RE: Bastardized URL protocol
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:53:13 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sylvain Wallez [mailto:sylvain@apache.org] 
> Sent: donderdag 13 november 2003 16:31
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Bastardized URL protocol
> 
> 
> 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://".
> 

I second that. I have only had to see the '://' vs. ':/' syntax once to
understand it and never found it to be confusing. It may be not
completely according to official standards but I think it's the best
solution compared to the provided alternatives.

Unico


Mime
View raw message