On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we already have 1. and 2. if we want to use > antlibs,
except we don't have the descriptors, yet. > and assuming we can place additional resources where we like. We can. >> Something where loading of the descriptor gets triggered by the >> namespace URI, but this is optional, at least for me. > > If we have consent to add resources, did anybody object? > then yes, the above is optional, but for me only barely so. I understand that, and have no problem with adding a new ant* protocol to shorten this. It doesn't have to be ant: and it doesn't have to be antlib:, but even for antlib we could easily make it work by adding a subprotocol if needed. > It almost seems integral that if we are going to essentially bundle > antlibs in the core, then those should be distinguished by a custom > means of access, and that as terse as possible. Yes, I agree, but it is no show-stopper to me. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
