Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9814 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2003 15:31:24 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Nov 2003 15:31:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 35514 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2003 15:31:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 35478 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2003 15:31:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 35441 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2003 15:31:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO main.gmane.org) (80.91.224.249) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Nov 2003 15:31:03 -0000 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AKJR2-000198-00 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:31:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: from sea.gmane.org ([80.91.224.252]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AKJR1-00018y-00 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:31:03 +0100 Received: from news by sea.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AKJR1-0000Sc-00 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:31:03 +0100 From: Sylvain Wallez Subject: Re: Bastardized URL protocol Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:31:01 +0100 Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <3FB34E94.7040206@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: fr, en, en-us In-Reply-To: Sender: news X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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://". Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects } Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com