Re: Bastardized URL protocol

[Sylvain Wallez]

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.
 

+1. And since it perfectly matches the "cocoon://" vs "cocoon:/" 
difference, I think this will be the most easy to understand rather than 
"context://" vs "sitemap://".

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