Hi,
On Nov 18, 2007 5:01 PM, David Nuescheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I would rather just go for a straight, more direct extension-based
> resolution than engaging in the whole mimetype business.
+1
Though, on a tangent, I'm wondering if we could achieve the same use
cases with just the existing URL-to-JCR-path mapping. For example,
instead of:
.../path/to/document.html
.../path/to/document.pdf
.../path/to/document.json
.../path/to/document.atom
We could do something like this:
.../path/to/document
.../pdf/path/to/document
.../json/path/to/document
.../atom/path/to/document
With actual /pdf, /json, and /atom nodes within the repository to
dispatch the desired processing or rendering functionality. The nice
thing about this approach is that we could more easily have customized
behaviour per subtree:
.../path/pdf/to/document
In fact I'd even consider doing the same for selectors to simplify the
URL mapping process to a direct path walk.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
