I have to say that I agree with paddy on this. /Shawn
On Nov 19, 2007 3:53 PM, Padraic I. Hannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess I am a bit confused as to what is wrong with > > /path/to/document.pdf > /path/to/document.html > > It seems to me that such a request specifies both the location of the > content in question and provides fairly strong hints as to the template > to run. I understand that some people may want to say that .html and > .htm are the same file but in our experience here at edmunds it is very > much desired not to ignore the extension. Also, someone proposed having > scripts include other scripts when two extensions want to be act > identically is not bad since we could address both use cases. > > mahalo, > paddy > > Jukka Zitting wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Nov 19, 2007 11:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 19, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote: > >> > >>> Though, on a tangent, I'm wondering if we could achieve the same use > >>> cases with just the existing URL-to-JCR-path mapping. [...] > >>> > >> The disadvantage is that it makes a mess of hierarchical access control > >> and relative links. Very bad. > >> > > > > We could also do something like .../path/to/document/pdf (or even > > ../path/to/document?format=pdf though that's a bit ugly and requires > > special case code) to make relative links easier. Access controls > > shouldn't be a concern as long as they're embedded within the > > underlying repository. > > > > My main concern is that we are currently splitting the URIs four ways > > (resource path, selectors, extension, suffix) when I think we could do > > just as well with two parts (resource path, suffix). This would IMHO > > make the URI mapping much more straightforward and flexible, at the > > price of moving part of the mapping code from the Sling framework > > itself to the servlet components deployed in Sling. > > > > BR, > > > > Jukka Zitting > > > > >
