On 31 Mar 2004, at 17:31, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
I would say: yes, add the blocks directory. It would be good if the blocks
you add there are not already used in the cocoon-2.1 cvs, which means just
use unused names.
eheh, this is not a problem anymore since these blocks are real ones and they will identified by a URI ;-)
To get back to the problem of URL/Namespace/identifier, I just thought that for namespace (yes) we can use http://apache.org/cocoon/... since a namespace doesn't have to provide any actual data (can return a 404, or even a IOException).
try clicking on "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
For blocks, though, do we want to have them to point at something (like the block descriptor, or the home page) or shall we ignore for now?
we *MUST* be able to serve stuff from our URI block identifiers from the future. it's actually the whole point in having http: based identifiers.
I think that blocks URI should be starting with http://cocoon.apache.org/block/ because that doesn't change and also signifies that these URI don't represent namespaces (which will be still http://apache.org/cocoon) and will also make it easier for us to control that URL space when we'll need to publish the metadata in it.
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
