Berin Loritsch wrote:
<snip/>
Wild idea: context:/ identifies the current context, context:// identifies the root sitemap? Like in cocoon: protocol?
>*shudder*<
PLEASE, read this rant.
I think it is an abuse of the the URL protocol to specify different semantics for one slash verses two. You are opening the door to
introducing more errors than this "cool" feature solves. Please make relative URLs very different from absolute URLs.
The way relative URLs work according to the spec is to simply have the portion of the URL that you want to tack on to the end. For instance, foo/bar/baz.xml would be tacked on to context://path/to/current/context/ and create the full URL.
The key here is to be able to specify the base URL for resolving URIs. By default we are still using the file:// URL protocol as our base URL. Perhaps that should change?
Bastardized URL specs will be the source of many user requests saying...
Question:
I have the XYZ resource set up in my sitemap, and it is where I told it to be. How come the sitemap can't find it?
Answer:
Oh, you are missing a slash from the context:/ URL. Add that in and it should work.
THink about it carefully.
So since we _need_ to be able to specify URLs relative to the current sitemap, what do you suggest? A subprotocol like what we have for "cocoon:raw", another protocol like "current-sitemap:"?
Just like Bruno, I'm happy with the "cocoon:/" and "cocoon://" we have today. Moreover, I have not seen any of the people to which I explained this behaviour complaining about URL syntax abuse.
Also, I'm not following cocoon-users closely enough, but does this Q&A you describe above come often about the "cocoon:" protocol?
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects } Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
