On Apr 10, 2005 10:17 PM, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gianugo Rabellino wrote: > > >However, if it's agreed once and for all that > >dynamic sitemaps are to be considered harmful, so be it and let's > >enforce it: it slipped through already, and now it doesn't work > >anymore because of a bug. A check failing with an error message would > >be enough to prevent stupid people like me to try it again in the > >future (even though there will always be the http route...). > > > > > > Well, as long as there is the http route, blocking "cocoon:" will just > lead people to use an uglier workaround which you just engraved in the > archives for posterity ;-)
Hey, I wasn't the first one to suggest that ;-) > > So if we're to enforce something, it should be that a sitemap is a file, > or a classpath resource (yes, I have this usecase). Yep. Tricky, though: I sure can imagine sitemaps stored anywhere (why not a JSR170 repo? or a webdav server? as long as it's static stuff...), and blocking this possibility just to avoid (ab)use of possibly dynamic protocols such as cocoon or http could be a bit too much. I'd rather go for a big fat warning then... Ciao, -- Gianugo Rabellino Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com (blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
