Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3E009ACC.7030106@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:57:00 +0100
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org>
Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.2) Gecko/20021126
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: File prefix again (Re: Cocoon CLI - how to generate the whole
 site)
References: <3DFD87E4.1090508@apache.org>
 <20021216120309.GA2355@expresso.localdomain> <3DFDCEC0.1060109@apache.org>
 <20021216142017.GC2355@expresso.localdomain> <3DFDEC75.1020700@apache.org>
 <20021217043902.GA1977@expresso.localdomain> <3DFF2FBD.5020601@apache.org>
 <20021217155222.GC8629@expresso.localdomain> <3E0084C7.2000100@apache.org>
 <20021218151740.GA2922@expresso.localdomain>
 <20021218154507.GB2922@expresso.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20021218154507.GB2922@expresso.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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. 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.
"

Address those. I do change my mind. But I have to be convinced, as 
everyone here. Don't try to short-circuit the discussion becuse it 
simply doesn't work.

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