> -----Original Message----- > From: Sylvain Wallez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: donderdag 13 november 2003 16:31 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bastardized URL protocol > > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > >Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > > > >>Just because we have one protocol that is messed up and we can't > >>change it doesn't mean we should make the same mistakes. > >> > >> > >True. > > > > > > > >>For the Context protocol, I highly recommend doing something other > >>than the one slash vs. two approach used for the "cocoon" protocol. > >> > >>*Something* doesn't have to mean using the xml:base > approach outlined > >>above. But it does mean that we shouldn't repeat the same mistake. > >> > >> > >Sorry, I haven't followed the whole discussion, so this > might have been > >already discussed: why can't we use a new protocol, e.g. > "sitemap:", so > >context:// is the context :), and sitemap:// resolves > relative to the > >current sitemap? > > > >Even using context:// and context:/ is fine for me. Users > are used to > >it anyway, even if it might not be the most perfect syntax. > > > > > > +1. And since it perfectly matches the "cocoon://" vs "cocoon:/" > difference, I think this will be the most easy to understand > rather than > "context://" vs "sitemap://". >
I second that. I have only had to see the '://' vs. ':/' syntax once to understand it and never found it to be confusing. It may be not completely according to official standards but I think it's the best solution compared to the provided alternatives. Unico
