[Zope3-dev] Final(?) "Safe" Character List

[Jim Fulton]

"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
> 
> Well, this looks to be it, unless anybody has any other alterations to
> make.  These are the characters we have to work with for an escape
> sequence.  (We should probably make up some kind of summary of the
> unsuccessful results of the tests as well, for future reference in deciding
> on rules for content ids.)
> 
> Characters Under Consideration
> ==============================
> 
> !        RFC 1738 "extra"; RFC 2396 "unreserved mark"
> 
> +        Listed as "safe" in RFC 1738; RFC 2396 "reserved in context"
> 
> =        RFC 1738 "reserved in context"
> 
> @        RFC 1738 "reserved in context"
> 
> _        RFC 1738 "safe"; RFC 2396 "unreserved mark"
> 
> ======== End Table
> 
> So I think we're ready to move to a proposals phase for parameter encoding
> and view selection syntax.
> 
> I think the key issue here is, which of the characters above, or what
> combination of characters above, will *not* be allowed to begin a content
> ID?  (Assuming we don't use a regex or split-based syntax like
> 'view=foo+thepage.html'.)
> 
> Here are some (far from exhaustive) ideas, to get the debate rolling...
> Personally, I don't like *any* of them, but some stink a *little* less than
> the others:
> 
> Short Form              Long Form
> ------------------      ----------------------------------
> 
> !view!thePage.html      !ns=view+skin=theSkin!thePage.html
> 
> @view=thePage.html      @ns+view!skin+theSkin=thePage.html
> 
> @view!thePage.html      @ns=view+skin=theSkin!thePage.html
> 
> =view@thePage.html      =ns+view=skin+theSkin@thePage.html
> 
> @view@thePage.html      @ns=view+skin=theSkin@thePage.html
> 
> __view@thePage.html     __ns=view+__skin=theSkin@thePage.html
> 
> Ugh!  We really don't have much to work with here.

These are all pretty bad.

>  It's *really* too bad
> that ( and ) didn't work out.  Even "(ns=view+skin=theSkin)thePage.html" is
> a lot more readable than any of the crap above.

I agree. Remind my why () didn't work. Was it just a matter of breaking magic url 
detection in email bodies disqualified ()? If so, I'm not sure this is a strong
enough reason.

I'm also *really* surprised that no one commented on my observation
(really Shane's observation from many months ago) that spelled out namespace
names are too english-centric.

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