Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
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.
IMNSHO, context: and context:/ are much clearer than context:/ and context://.
IOW a relative URI should never have a beginning slash. It is easier to spot
a mistake when it is between a character that is not there at all vs. not enough
characters.
