Bruno Dumon wrote:
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 12:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Unico Hommes wrote:
Wild idea: context:/ identifies the current context, context://
identifies the root sitemap? Like in cocoon: protocol?
Great idea (again!). Currently, the "context:" protocol requires the
double-slash and links to the root sitemap, so we can implement this
additional behaviour with a single slash with no compatibility break.
And the similarity with "cocoon:" makes it easy to understand.
This makes me think that "cocoon:" must also be be relative to the
"current" sitemap, and not that handling the request.
BAD IDEA.
Please, you are adding contracts to the URL spec that aren't there.
Not really true. The basic structure of an URL is:
<scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>
and the interpretation of the scheme specific part depends on the
scheme.
Instead I would highly encourage you to provide a way to set the base
URL where relative URLs would be resolved to.
Work *with* the contract instead of extending it in non-intuitive ways.
See my rant in another email.
Again see my rant in the other email. There are HUGE differnces in the
way the URL is interpreted based on the existence of a repetitive character.
It should be more obvious than that.
And don't forget that URLs do have the concept of *resolving* relative
URLs. THose are the contracts I am refering to.
