Mattam wrote: > > 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.
I agree, having both is highly confusing. Moreover, I think that we should *not* be using the XInclude namespace on the server side because we could get collisions in the future for browsers implementing XInclude on the client side. For example, suppose you have something like this <blah> <include xmlns="http://www.w3.org/xinclude/2000"; src="blah.inc"/> <include xmlns="http://apache.org/cocoon/include"; src="blah.inc"/> </blah> the first tag should *not* be processed by Cocoon, even by an 'including' transformer. So, IMO, the best long term solution would be: 1) deprecate both XIncludeTransformer and CIncludeTransformer 2) change CIncludeTransformer to IncludeTransformer 3) make IncludeTransformer work just on a cocoon-specific namespace what do you think? -- Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
