Julian Reschke wrote:
Bill de hÓra schrieb:
If you type my surname into a Plone site that uses
rename_after_creation to create a url slug for the page, it will drop
Ó to o.
That may be a reasonable behavior for the server today, although I
certainly wouldn't want to spec it.
I certainly wouldn't want to disallow it.
If you type my surname into a movable type blog, it will drop the Ó
altogether.
That one I'd call a bug.
I don't see how you can, honestly.
If type Les_Fran%C3%A7ais_ont_gagn%C3%A9_hier_soir into a movable type
blog, it will come back with:
/les_fran-c3-a7ais_ont_gagn-c3-a9_hier_soir
Well, we're here to specify a good protocol, not to write down what some
implementations do today.
Well, no. I say SLUG is invention unless it's keyed off what
implementations do around what are commonly known as 'slugs'.
If this spec would specify a URI segment,
servers clearly could un-percent-escape and UTF8-decode, then extract
words, then assign the URI.
This position doesn't work for me. It's a late arriving feature,
entirely optional, has security implementations (this kind of content
has to be considered tainted) needs encoding information/assumptions...
As you know, people have spent /years/ trying to sort this
encoding/IRI/URI/URL stuff out on other fora. It's a complete tarpit. I
don't see how to patch this into APP without a lot of work to get
agreement, and expect people to upgrade their slugging code because we
think it's neat to send in URL fragments instead of text. Unless we just
say the server can do whatever it wants.
I don't have a copy of wordpress handy to see what it does.
-1 if we're going to redefine/expand what slugging actually means or
inject new requirements on tools by way of spec riders.
A better example would be:
Slug: A Picture of my House
and let the server sort it out. Anything beyond that, and we should
re-open URL templates.
I'm fine with not using URI syntax here, but at the end of the day, the
spec should not only say how to do non-ISO8859 characters, but also
present a matching example.
Then let's call it something else, because this isn't what I call a
slug. And perhaps let's do it somewhere else, cos to spec this out
'properly' is enough to justify its own RFC afaict.
Crap. I was mildly +1 on this when it landed, but am currently -1, due
to scope creep.
cheers
Bill
