cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: Bastardized URL protocol
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:33:04 GMT

On 13 Nov 2003, at 11:35, Berin Loritsch wrote:

> 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.

and break all sitemaps out there?


View raw message