Re: [Scrollkeeper-devel] ScrollKeeper-0.1 Proposal #3

[Ali A. <ali...@au...>]

* Laszlo Kovacs (las...@su...) wrote at 17:09 on 14/11/00:
> > Perhaps we should use a URI instead of a URL (so a local file would be
> > 'file:///usr/doc/foo.sgml' or
> > 'http://scrollkeeper.sourceforge.net/manual.sgml' - but that would suck,
> > because you'd have to handle the URI parsing (which will just duplicate
> > code that is in gnome-vfs (and prolly some other KDE library out there))
> 
> Any suggestions to fix this problem? Btw as we all know Scrollkeeper is
> supposed to be independent from Gnome. 

Well - you could implement a very small subset of URI functions (only the ones
that you need (and only handle file/http/ftp)...That way we can stay
"neutral"

Actually - I don't think that scrollkeeper would need to handle anything
except the 'file:///' URI type...

Please the burden on the browser to go online and retrieve docs (or go online
and fetch the metadata) - That way each project can use its own libraries.

If you _DO_ have the metadata to an online doc installed on your system, and
somebody tries to "retrieve" that doc, ScrollKeeper would return an error
(NOTAVAILABLE (note: this is not the same as NOTFOUND))

One of the problems I see is two "versions" of metadata (one for online, one
for offline) - how do you handle those? ("merge" them?)

Regards,
Ali