Link Protocols was [Re: Do not hard-code the context prefix!]

["Gregor J. Rothfuss" <gr...@apache.org>]

Andreas Hartmann wrote:

> I'm not aware of all consequences, and this has certainly
> be discussed quite often, but I think I would prefer
> protocols.
> 
> (1) document:/{document-id}
> 
>     e.g., document://foo/bar
> 
>     This would add a link to the same (with fallback to
>     existing) language version of a certain document.
>     It would probably simplify link management etc.
> 
> (2) site:/{absolute-url}
> 
>     e.g., site://images/logo.png
> 
>     This would add a link to a page / resource.
> 
> Maybe it is worth considering link semantics for a
> document type. E.g., for XHTML it would mean to specify
> that @href and @src attributes are used for links and
> therefore are translated when they start with "site:/".

forrest does some pretty fancy stuff in that department. one would think 
that we could converge on a solution with them.

i like the protocol abstraction. it provides flexibility in the right 
place. http://www.windley.com/2003/10/28.html#a887

-gregor

-- 
Gregor J. Rothfuss
Wyona Inc.  -   Open Source Content Management   -   Apache Lenya
http://wyona.com                   http://cocoon.apache.org/lenya
gregor.rothfuss@wyona.com                       gregor@apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org