Michael Dexter wrote: >> My book (http://worldcookery.com) explains them, just look them up in >> the index. > > Where can I buy a copy for a reasonable price in Berlin?
http://worldcookery.com/WhereToBuy lists several online possibilities. Of course, you should also be able to order it in any local bookstore. They will usually have over night. > My question is thus very naive: what is the ++xyz++ and @@xyz syntax and > can it be avoided? As I said in a reply to Chris, sure they can be avoided. But then you'll run into the same ambiguity problems as in Zope 2. >>>> Failing to find a clear explanation, I only see a ways for Zope3-based >>>> sites to: >>>> >>> 1. Be toyed with by the user. >>> How so? >> "ooo look, pretty shiny things in urls, I wonder what they mean" > > Skin variables in URL would be great during development but suggest that > the user can make skin selection. Keep in mind I have no idea if > ++thisskin++ is required as I cannot find the aforementioned explanation > of that syntax. No, it's not required. http://worldcookery.com is a Zope 3 site. Do you see any ++namespace++ urls? I don't. Note that ++namespace++ isn't just for skins, it's about invoking a namespace traversal adapter. There are a few examples (these and others are defined in zope.traversing.namespace): * ++skin++MySkin is for skins * ++resource++logo.gif is for acquiring resources (images, JavaScripts, CSS, etc.) * ++view++edit.html is for acquiring a view Again, the reasoning behind their existance is that in Zope 2, something/foo is ambiguous. Is 'foo' a view, a contained object (=attribute), a resource? You wouldn't know. Whichever thing is acquired first wins. That's why Zope 3 gives you the possibility to traverse in different dimensions, not just content space. That's what traversal namespaces do. If you can live with ambiguities, you won't need ++namespace++ and @@. > If @@ is for inspection, is this something the public > can/should do? Security issues? I already wrote to Chris: If the usage of traversal naemspaces provide a security risk, there's something wrong with your application. This wouldn't be the traversal namespaces' fault, though. >>>> 2. Fall out of search engines. >>> >>> Why? >> >> Search engines don't particularly like weird characters in urls. >> This can be extremely important for some users... > > If my Zope2 site uses http://worldcookery.com/About and my Zope3 site > uses http://worldcookery.com/++kewlskin++About then the existing links > are presumably dead or inaccurate. You're handwaving because you don't understand traversal namespaces. This point is mute. >>>> 4. Fail the over-the-phone test of URl's... >>> >>> Can you spell @@ or ++ over the phone? I can. >> >> Yeah, but you're one of the leading Zope developers in the world. >> Try explaining it to someone with an IQ of 50 who just about knows >> what a / (no, the *other* slash) and a . (yeah, the one without the >> curly bit on the bottom of it) are ;-) > > I put this in the same category as Plone's clean URL principle. When you > tell a friend about your book, http://worldcookery.com/About is very > clear. Amazon's > http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_top_idx/102-2282457-8274534?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageID=S0DD&asin=3540223592#reader-link > is slightly less so, as with anything in between. Semi-informed users > will also assert that URL's don't have +'s or @'s and they probably > haven't read RFC2396. You're comparing the Virgin Mary with Satan himself there. If you can't manage to spell "@" over the phone, then good luck spelling your email address. And again, you won't have to if you don't want to. >>> Plus, no one says ++ and >>> @@ have to occur in a public view of Zope 3 site. Go to >>> http://worldcookery.com. You won't see much of @@ or ++. >> >> Good, I'd love to know how to produce a whole Zope 3 app without these >> weird appendages... >> (and yes, I know why they're there, doesn't mean I like 'em any more ;-) > > I'm still trying to figure out why they're there. :) See above. The keyword is ambiguities. >> That depends on your application based on Zope. You can try to avoid >> generating URLs with @@ and ++, but we generally don't consider these >> URLs harmful in any way. > > Try to avoid or avoid? Mr. Withers seems to agree that clean URL's are a > good thing, along with the Plone team. Well all want clean URLs, but we happen to have different tastes. Some people I know think it's pure blasphemy to have upper case characters in URLs. What can I say... You can avoid it in your URLs. Launchpad.net does it, for example. >> Sounds like you want to volunteer :) > > Happy to once I "get it" but alas, I still don't. I do sincerely > appreciate Zope's overall use of precise terminology but that > terminology must be spelled out very carefully in layman's terms if you > are to not frustrate the uninitiated. My book explains it. So do the links I pointed you to in my first reply. This mailinglist thread will also have done its share. Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
