Rob Lanphier wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 20:56 +0100, Timwi wrote:
Article titles with a slash in them, such as
[[History/edit]] if anyone
ever wanted to create it, could be encoded using a double-slash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/History//edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/History//edit/edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/History//edit/history
This is less alienating than "%28" for parentheses or "%2C" for
commas,
but of course one could always use "%2F" for slashes for consistency.
I'm not sure if there's a specific prohibition of this practice in any
spec,
No, there isn't.
but it does fight typical conventions, which is kind
of a bad
thing. For example, it appears that Apache throws away extra slashes,
as can be seen here:
http://apache.org///foundation////faq.html
http://apache.org/foundation/faq.html
IIS seems to do the same thing:
http://www.microsoft.com////windowsserversystem///default.mspx
I assure you that Apache does not throw away extra slashes. I have
already done the necessary programming to do URLs such as those I have
mentioned. The examples you mentioned don't say anything about the
webservers themselves because both URLs are obviously mappings to a
filesystem (whether virtual or not); it is that filesystem that throws
away the extra slashes (which you can easily test: Both Linux and
Windows allow you to put double-/ resp. double-\ in a path and it won't
complain).
Compare:
http://www.livejournal.com/manage/index.bml
and
http://www.livejournal.com/manage//index.bml
They show the same page because the path is a mapping to a filesystem,
but the pages are different because the individual strings on it are
retrieved from codes that are based on the path. Those codes contain
only single slashes, so the second page is missing those strings. This
clearly shows that it's the filesystem and not Apache that "throws away"
double-slashes.
Mixing subpages into the action namespace seems like a
bad idea.
Arguably its worse when its only the exception, because that means it'll
be something that will always need to be accommodated, but rare enough
that its often forgotten.
I don't understand what you're saying here. I'm not "mixing"
anything.
The rest doesn't seem to make any sense. Can you rephrase this?
Of course it would "work", but it's not what I want because
"?action="
is a pain to type.
Timwi