I welcome an alternative term if that would be less confusing, but the fact is this convention exists and it's not a part of any specification.
I chose microformat as a description because it's a conventional extension of an existing standard, HTTP parameters, to carry extra information e.g. nesting relationships. This is exactly the sort of thing microformats do with XHTML. So what if we're embedding semantics into a key/value string rather than XML? To me that's just an implementation detail. So I'm curious where this convention came from, and what precisely are the rules involved? Is there documentation for it? On Aug 24, 9:31 pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> wrote: > Adam Lassek wrote: > > The parameter is a String, which is parsed into a Hash by way of a > > convention. > > There is no convention, really -- it's too trivial to call it that. The > HTTP parameters are already a list of name-value pairs, which is exactly > what a hash is. > > > That convention is what I'm referring to as a microformat. > > Then you're using the term idiosyncratically at best and inaccurately at > worst. > > Best, > -- > Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org > [email protected] > > Sent from my iPhone > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
