On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:30:02 +0200, Aaron Boodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007 4:44 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I feel like me and the other querystringers are missing some critical
detail that would make omitting querystring support work. So here is
how I see it. Please tell me what is missing.
The bugzilla scenario is a good one. Someone wants to offline-enable
bugzilla. They could rewrite bugzilla to use fragment identifiers
instead of querystrings, but then bug shortcuts on the web would not
work with the offline-enabled application. They couldn't really cache
all possible pages (there are lots of bugs, and that would be really
inefficient). I suppose you could have each bug page be a separate
application, and cache each one as it is viewed online, but this is
really wasteful, and more importantly, bug shortcuts won't work
offline unless you have previously visited them.
Ok, so you download all the bugzilla data into an offline database and
based on querystring requests you get that data out of the database and
run it through the show_bug template. I suppose that makes some sense.
Maybe there should be a way for an application to register which URIs it
can handle in offline context and which file will handle them? (This would
also make it work if an application was set up to not use query strings.)
This does increase the likelyhood you get two "separate" applications
though and that's not very nice.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
