Re: suggested syntax for channels
| From: | Ian Eure | Date: | Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:02:54 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: suggested syntax for channels | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-33475@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Monday 20 September 2004 01:49 am, Richard York wrote:
> 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.
>
+1
I doubt that anyone who would run into the *nix shell quoting issues this
raises will be ignorant of them.
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature]
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature]