Berin Loritsch wrote: > Just because we have one protocol that is messed up and we can't change it > doesn't mean we should make the same mistakes. > True.
> For the Context protocol, I highly recommend doing something other than > the one slash vs. two approach used for the "cocoon" protocol. > > *Something* doesn't have to mean using the xml:base approach > outlined above. > But it does mean that we shouldn't repeat the same mistake. > Sorry, I haven't followed the whole discussion, so this might have been already discussed: why can't we use a new protocol, e.g. "sitemap:", so context:// is the context :), and sitemap:// resolves relative to the current sitemap? Even using context:// and context:/ is fine for me. Users are used to it anyway, even if it might not be the most perfect syntax. But I'm against a more complicated way of doing this. Carsten
