Tim Williams wrote:
I'm struggling determining whether the matching order of images can be
different from xml specifically with respect to locationmaps. Should
images *always* resolve through locationmaps as a last resort the same
as xml?
We should have two locationmaps: Forrest's and the user's.
The user's takes precedence on Forrest's.
For example, the "images/**.*" match currently uses
otherwise to match to an apparent backward compatibility set of
images. It seems to make sense in these cases that locationmap
resolved images would resolve in a higher priority than the current
otherwise.
The user's locationmap should have a higher priority than Forrest's.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
