forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <>
Subject Re: Adding protocols to links
Date Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:15:39 GMT
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 06:00:41PM +0100, Bruno Dumon wrote:
> I haven't done much thinking about linking yet, just some quick
> remarks...
> On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 16:59, Jeff Turner wrote:
> [...]
> > For Forrest, the implied protocol in relative hrefs is 'cocoon:'.  So
> > <link href="mypdf.pdf"> actually means <link href="cocoon:mypdf.pdf">.
> Nitpicking: I think the implied protocol is rather 'http:' (or 'cli:').
> For the rest the idea looks good at first sight, though I have some
> doubts about (mis)using the protocol for this (or perhaps mainly with
> naming it protocol, something like namespace or linkspace would seem
> more correct).

Yes, 'protocol' is a bad name.  I used it because Cocoon uses it, but
Cocoon shouldn't either because there is no real _protocol_ involved.
The URI RFC uses the word "scheme" to indicate the syntactic convention
used in the rest of the URI.

  "Just as there are many different methods of access to resources, there
  are a variety of schemes for identifying such resources."
So the scheme 'http' usually results in the protocol HTTP being used.

> Another option would be to add a seperate attribute for
> this on the link tag, though that could be more awkward to use.

The DTD currently has a 'role' attribute, but if that is intended to
match the XLink meaning then it's not suitable:

I think if hrefs are meant to specify URIs, then 'scheme' is the best way
of describing this info.


> [..]
> > 
> > 
> > [1]
> I'll have a look a this...
> -- 
> Bruno Dumon                   
> Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center

View raw message