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://".
Sigh. I'm not going to force you guys not to make the same mistake again. It seems I am the only one who doesn't like it, even though I strongly encourage at least stripping out *one* of the forward slashes so that a relative URI has no forward slashes at the beginning at all.
Do what you will.
