On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 12:19, Berin Loritsch wrote:
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.
I somewhat agree with your rant, but I don't see the situation in Cocoon changing any time soon since it would break backwards compatibility. I find the cocoon:/ versus cocoon:// convenient to use though.
If I recall, I raised a hissy fit then too--I really don't like it.
BTW, there was a little error in your rant: context://path/to/current/context/ should have been context:///path/to/current/context/
See what I mean?
And yes, I find this to be even more troublesome.
Just how many forward slashes do you really need?
And don't forget that URLs do have the concept of *resolving* relative URLs. THose are the contracts I am refering to.
Yes, but it's still up to the scheme to specify if it follows those contracts or not.
They are there, and well understood--is there a compelling reason *not* to use them?
