Ross Gardler wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
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.
I'd like to avoid a Forrest locationmap at this stage.
I have no problem with this.
...
To be honest, I'm not yet convinced we need a Forrest locationmap. I
think this will be the subject of quite some dscussion, but I'd rather
enter the discussion once we have done plenty of experiments with a user
locationmap.
No problem. You will see the value when will try to refactor the
image-svg-png-etc stuff, that is full of redundancy. The locationmap can
greatly improve the code.
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.
Given that the test for the existence of a resource in the users
locationmap may be expensive, i.e. it may request a remote resource, I
think it should be the last test in the chain.
When we come to refactor the sitemaps either with a Forrest locationmap
or for the 1.0 release we can reconsider this decision.
It's not that important ATM, I concede.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
