"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
>
> Before debating alternatives further, perhaps we should recap the
> *requirements* for namespace handling, and try to come to some agreement
> about their relative priorities.
>
> Basically, the issue is that some type of "escape" is needed to distinguish
> between different namespaces in a URL path. This escape has the following
> requirements (priorities are my perception):
>
> * It MUST allow for the widest possible variety of content ID's within a
> container
>
> * It MUST NOT interfere with filename extensions as seen by the browser
>
> * It MUST NOT interfere with the file name or path as seen by the local OS
> (e.g., it should not contain OS path separator characters, or characters
> that would make it difficult to use the file.)
>
> * It MUST NOT rely on browsers or web servers to be fully RFC-compliant in
> their handling of parameters, URL escapes, etc.
>
> * It SHOULD BE able to be used in a single path component so that relative
> URLs are simple
>
> * It SHOULD BE easy to read/type
>
> * It WOULD BE NICE if it were not ugly. :)
>
> Have I missed anything? Does anybody disagree with the priorities I've used?
This is really nice. Thanks.
Steve mentioned that the syntax should work across multiple schemes if
possible.
I just thought of another this morning. It might be nice if the syntax
was not English-centric. For example, French speakers might not be too
happy with a url like:
.../(view)sommaire.html
Maybe if *I* wasn't so English-centric, I'd call this a requirement.
Early on, we were considering using single-letter names in parens, not
so much to avoid typing, but to avoid being so blatently English:
.../(v)sommaire.html
This morning, it occured to me to use:
.../(oo)sommaire.html
which is more of a hieroglyphic for view. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered!
CTO (888) 344-4332 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org