On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Zack Weinberg <za...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Timothy Brownawell <tbrow...@prjek.net> > wrote: > > > > Is the occasional backslash really that bad? '%' conflicts with > urlencoding > > (and '*' would only actually glob things if you have some really weirdly > > named files), and '?' is probably necessary for file/ssh sync. > > I think it's more important to avoid characters that are meaningful in > URLs (*especially* %) than to avoid characters that are meaningful to > the shell. People expect to have to quote URLs. Also, I don't like / > as a separator when it's not traversing a directory-like hierarchy. > Agreed, on all counts. > So, how about this? > > protocol:// > u...@server.host.name/path/to/database?include,include,-exclude,-exclude > > should work equally well for mtn (with usher), ssh, and file. Without > usher, you just leave out the /path part. > +1 (nice and simple) > > (Also, ~ in the path part should absolutely have the 'go to home > directory' semantic.) > Agreed here too. This proposal doesn't change the meaning of any URL-special characters which I think is important. Overloading % + ? = or & would be bad as people generally know what they mean in the context of a URL. We could consider using the fragment character # in place of the query string separator character ? but that's probably splitting hairs. This is a shell-special character too (for comments) but it doesn't seem to apply if there's non-whitespace immediately preceding it. Cheers, Derek
_______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
