Kevin Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:Kevin Brown wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote: Kevin Brown wrote: A far more appropriate solution is probably to enhance the content rewriter that Louis has written to support cajoling asone of the rewriting options. Where does that code live? .../gadgets/rewrite/...How would that option be specified? I think gadgets should be flagged as cajolable externally. Anything else would require spec changes or being non-standard. What do you mean by "flagged as cajolable externally"? In practice, it seems to me there are three scenarios: 1. Container allows gadgets to choose freely whether they are cajoled or not (more likely a sandbox than a live server). 2. Container forces Caja on all gadgets. 3. Container forces Caja on all gadgets except a whitelist (and those might choose to be Cajoled after all). #3 is exactly what I expect.#1 isn't possible without spec changes. Why not? They can <Require Feature="caja"> surely?They can <Optional feature="caja"/>, but there's no guarantee of that working across containers unless it's standardized.
OK, so that doesn't seem like a barrier to progress. The issue is simply that we currently need a URL parameter _and_ a <Require/Optional> to cause Cajoling to actually work. It seems to me that eliminating the need for the URL parameter would be good.
Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
