On 30.May.2002 -- 11:51 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> From: "Sylvain Wallez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Hi team,
> >
> > We all agree to add module-based sitemap variables, but we didn't came
> > to a consensus about it's syntax. So let's vote to make a choice. To
> > illustrate each possible syntax, I will consider the substitution of the
> > "foo" request parameter using the "request" InputModule.
> >
> > Here are the various syntaxes that people have proposed so far :
> >
> > 1 : {request:foo}
+1
> > 2 : {/request:foo}
+0.5
> > 3 : {module:request:foo}
+1
> > 4 : {/module:request:foo}
+0.5
> > 5 : {module://request/foo}
+0
> 6 : (all below apply, similarly to urls; prefer for consistency)
>
> {foo} (default sitemap module )
> {pathto/foo} (default sitemap module with path)
> {module:request://pathto/foo} (complete parameter uri)
+1
> > My +1 goes to (1) : I don't see the need to explicitly specify
> > "module:", just as we don't prefix URLs with "source:" or "url:" to
> > specify if they should be handled by a SourceFactory or URLFactory. And
> > if one day we add another mechanism to InputModules, the choice will be
> > the job of a variable resolver, just at it is today's job of the
> > SourceResolver for URLs.
>
> +1
+1
> > In order to have a more formal definition of sitemap variables, I
> > suggest that we consider unprefixed variables to belong to a builtin
> > "sitemap" module, which can be named explicitely, for example if the
> > variable name contains a colon, e.g. "{sitemap:foo:bar}".
>
> +1
+1
> Basically I want them to behave like urls do.
+1
Chris.
--
C h r i s t i a n H a u l
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fingerprint: 99B0 1D9D 7919 644A 4837 7D73 FEF9 6856 335A 9E08
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
