On 12 Nov 2003, at 17:18, Berin Loritsch wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Variable scoping aside, do you have any suggestion on how to solve the protocol issue?
--
Stefano, who reached a point where rants look like a very inefficient way of solving problems
As I mentioned in another email, leverage the xml:base="" attribute part of
the XML spec. That provides the base URI with which all relative URIs would
be resolved. It's dead simple, obvious, and less error prone than one slash
vs. two. Best of all, we don't bastardize any specs.
Now, we introduced the ** syntax for matchers and I think it was one of the greatest innovations in easy-to-use path-oriented query syntaxes, althought non standard. Nobody ever complained and I don't think it's because they are too shy to tell us.
<snip/>
The only potential solution I see is something like
<generate src="cocoon:/path" xml:base="/"> <generate src="cocoon:/path" xml:base=".">
I think that would not be correct usage of the xml:base... Correct usage would be something like:
<generate src="path" xml:base="cocoon:/">
<generate src="path" xml:base="cocoon:"> <!-- or xml:base="cocoon:." -->
<snip/>
but I'm not sure this makes things any easier or bugs any more evident. For sure, it's more verbose and for back compatibility, we still need to support cocoon://
Thoughts?
Any of the above does not look neither elegant nor easier. I'd keep the approach we have right now.
Vadim
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
