forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: File prefix again (Re: Cocoon CLI - how to generate the whole site)
Date Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:52:34 GMT

Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 03:23:03PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> ...
> 
>>>Firstly: do you agree that there _are_ two Sources?  That the user
>>>_could_ create an index.pdf?  In fact, considering that the user isn't
>>>meant to know that index.xml even *has* a PDF rendition, why shouldn't
>>>they create an index.pdf?
>>
>>I don't agree here. The user creates documents to explain a concept. 
>>"index" means it's the index.
> 
> Since when do semantics come into the business of ensuring every source
> has a URI?

A source is a piece of information. The name is a token that identifies 
that piece of information. It is placed in a context that is also named 
(directory). Where you place it has a sense -> semantics. The path is a 
moniker to what the piece of information *means*.

> Fact: users _can_ create an index.pdf.  Whether this is a good idea is
> irrelevant: as a source of content, it deserves a source URI.

I'd say that from the discussion it comes out that users should not be 
allowed to do it, and a check done as part of the validation, to ensure 
that double-named files are not there.

> We can
> then say, "by the way, it's really dumb creating index.pdf when you've
> got index.xml", but that's a layer above the raw URI space addressing
> issue.

Not IMHO. Since we decided to link to "concepts", we have actually IMHO 
decided that it's the filename that identifies the file, without the 
extension.

> 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.

I have not ignored it. I keep thinking that concetpually the file scheme 
is not require, for all the reasons I have explained.

Yes, the 'cocoon:' prefix is implicit. No, _conceptually_ it's not 
required *if* we decide that we cannot have more than one source file.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message