> From: Ivelin Ivanov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > >>From: Mattam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > >>Ivelin Ivanov [Sun, 09 Jun 2002 11:22:07 -0500]: > >> > >>| > >>| Two almost identical transformers are confusing me. > >>| What is the difference between the two? > >>| Should one be deprecated? > >>| > >>| I'd vote for the one which implements the W3C XInclude spec closest. > >>| Maybe it should take the best of the other one. > >>| > >> > >>CInclude allows cocoon:/ protocol, and XInclude tends to be a strict > >>implementation of the standard. Maybe keeping only XInclude while > > > > allowing the > > > >>cocoon:/ protocol (with a switch?) would be the better. > > > > > > That's not right; XInclude also works with cocoon: protocol, they both > > use Cocoon's resolver. > > > > IIRC, the reason of CInclude existence is completely different: if you > > remove CInclude, it will be more complicated to serve documents with > > inclusions and with tags in xinclude namespace. Right now, this is not > > an issue: create document with xinclude *and* cinclude tags, process it > > through cinclude, and xinclude will remain intact, no sweat. > > > Does this justify a separate code base though? Allowing the Xinclude > component to act on a sitemap parameter specified namespace should do.
Carsten? Donald? Why we have two transformers? :) If xinclude gets caching ability (as CachingCIncludeTransformer does), I say one transformer should suffice. Vadim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
