On 13 Nov 2003, at 11:35, Berin Loritsch wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:Carsten Ziegeler wrote:Berin Loritsch wrote:+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://".
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.
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.
and break all sitemaps out there?
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
