Re: suggested syntax for channels

Greg Beaver wrote:

Alan Knowles wrote:

I'm not sure how problematic the & is in unix, I use it alot with wget/lynx, and know that I need to quote the string using it. I doubt that it would be used enough to be a big enough issue to justify much effort working around it.

Would you say using /foo=bar/nextfoo=nextbar instead of ?foo=bar&nextfoo=nextbar is much effort from the user perspective? From the implementation perspective, using / is pretty straightforward, using ?thing=val&next=nextval would be simpler, but it's a difference of about 2 lines of code.

IMO, If you're going to use a URI-style syntax you should keep the amphersand. Changing to a slash seems more expensive from a usability point of view. -- Richard York ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [richy[<@>]smilingsouls[<@>]net] :: [http://www.smilingsouls.net] [http://pear.php.net/Mail_IMAP] A PHP/C-Client/PEAR solution for webmail