| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Chris Gray wrote:
> Yes, that's correct, I'm reading via NNTP. What I see for those URLs is of
> the form '<' URL space tag space tag '>'. I've become used to the (Windows-
> derived?) form of URLs that is '<' URL '>' . So, I assumed that the intended
> URL was everything between the angle brackets. Now that I know that that
> isn't always the case for URL's on Lugnet, I'll probably be OK.
URLs in FTX can be written both ways -- as <url> or as <url label>.
> However, it is a confusing format, in that it extends an already existing
> convention,
What's cool (IMHO) is that it extends this convention in a perfectly
backward-compatible way.
> in a way that can look like a user error
I think that's an OK tradeoff for what is gained, don't you?
> (many Windows people end up creating URL's with spaces in them).
Mundanes?
> So, perhaps there could be a less confusing form. One possibility is <URL>
> (Tag Tag) instead of the current <URL Tag Tag>.
That's an intriguing suggestion, but I'm not sure it encapsulates things tightly
enough. For example, what if you actually wanted to include
something in parentheses after the URL?
When this notation was being hashed out a few years ago, one suggestion was
to use a vertical bar (|) character to separate the URL from the label, i.e.,
<url | label>, since the vertical bar character isn't allowed in URLs. While
that would have worked, it's a bit of overkill since spaces aren't allowed in
URLs either.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Individual Membership enrollment now open
|
| (...) Yes, that's correct, I'm reading via NNTP. What I see for those URLs is of the form '<' URL space tag space tag '>' . I've become used to the (Windows- derived?) form of URLs that is '<' URL '>' . So, I assumed that the intended URL was (...) (21 years ago, 15-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
