Rob Lanphier wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 20:56 +0100, Timwi wrote:
Article titles with a slash in them, such as [[History/edit]] if anyone ever wanted to create it, could be encoded using a double-slash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/History//edit http://en.wikipedia.org/History//edit/edit http://en.wikipedia.org/History//edit/history
This is less alienating than "%28" for parentheses or "%2C" for commas, but of course one could always use "%2F" for slashes for consistency.
I'm not sure if there's a specific prohibition of this practice in any spec,
No, there isn't.
but it does fight typical conventions, which is kind of a bad thing. For example, it appears that Apache throws away extra slashes, as can be seen here: http://apache.org///foundation////faq.html http://apache.org/foundation/faq.html IIS seems to do the same thing: http://www.microsoft.com////windowsserversystem///default.mspx
I assure you that Apache does not throw away extra slashes. I have already done the necessary programming to do URLs such as those I have mentioned. The examples you mentioned don't say anything about the webservers themselves because both URLs are obviously mappings to a filesystem (whether virtual or not); it is that filesystem that throws away the extra slashes (which you can easily test: Both Linux and Windows allow you to put double-/ resp. double-\ in a path and it won't complain).
Compare: http://www.livejournal.com/manage/index.bml and http://www.livejournal.com/manage//index.bml
They show the same page because the path is a mapping to a filesystem, but the pages are different because the individual strings on it are retrieved from codes that are based on the path. Those codes contain only single slashes, so the second page is missing those strings. This clearly shows that it's the filesystem and not Apache that "throws away" double-slashes.
Mixing subpages into the action namespace seems like a bad idea. Arguably its worse when its only the exception, because that means it'll be something that will always need to be accommodated, but rare enough that its often forgotten.
I don't understand what you're saying here. I'm not "mixing" anything. The rest doesn't seem to make any sense. Can you rephrase this?
In the spirit of putting the action at the end, perhaps this syntax would work: http://en.wikipedia.org/Pagename?action=edit http://en.wikipedia.org/Pagename?action=history
Of course it would "work", but it's not what I want because "?action=" is a pain to type.
Timwi