forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>
Subject Re: File prefix again (Re: Cocoon CLI - how to generate the whole site)
Date Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:53:15 GMT
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 04:57:00PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 02:17:40AM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
> >...
> >
> >>Popping the argument stack a bit, remember that this whole silly example
> >>of index.xml/index.pdf is a pathological case, that won't have the
> >>desired effect no matter what the URI is.  You have ignored my main
> >>argument, that the 'cocoon:' prefix is implicit and _conceptually_ a
> >>file: scheme is required.
> >
> >For your convenience, here is the conceptual justification for 'file:',
> >11 emails ago:
> [...]
> ><<<<<
> >
> >To that, your response started:
> >
> >>First distinction: schemes are not IMV in the source URI space, but in
> >>the destination URI space
> >
> >In the intervening 11 emails, I hope I have at least convinced you of the
> >wrongness of that statement, and hence the position you held back then,
> >based on it.
> 
> I have already said that I have changed my mind on this particular 
> point.

Then do please respond to the snippet, and point out exactly where my
logic fails.  It is a clear set of logical inferences.

> Moreover, There were other comments during the letter, and the results
> of the discussion on those I haven't changed my mind.
> 
> A part that is still being discussed, for example, started here
> 
> "...since we have decided that link URIs should not end in extensions, 
> because of many reasons one of which is the fact that a URI can 
> reference different formats at different times in history, having a 
> scheme that effectively makes me serve two different versions of the 
> same file is totally off-target.
> "

Extensions describe _what_ the file contents is.  Schemes describe how to
get the resource.  They are not the same.  The "extensions are bad"
argument (which, if you recall, was my answer to your "lets have multiple
extensions") has no relevance here.  I described at length the solution
to "different formats at different times": have multiple output URIs.
However that is an implementation issue; the conceptual issue is the bit
you ignored the first time, and snipped this time.


> Address those. I do change my mind. But I have to be convinced, as 
> everyone here.

Strangely I don't see them -1'ing things.


--Jeff

> Don't try to short-circuit the discussion becuse it simply doesn't
> work.
> 

Mime
View raw message