Hi All,
Looks like there's either a documentation or functionality bug in test.py:
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/2045
Jim, Stefan suggested you might be the best person to ask about this?
cheers,
Chris
PS: Aplogies for the cross-posting, but this is relevant to both lists.
Maybe time
Chris Withers wrote:
Hi All,
Looks like there's either a documentation or functionality bug in test.py:
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/2045
Jim, Stefan suggested you might be the best person to ask about this?
Yes, it is a known bug.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim, Stefan suggested you might be the best person to ask about this?
Yes, it is a known bug.
Okay, is the bug in the documentation or the functionality?
Is there another issue open for this anywhere?
cheers,
Chris
___
Zope-Dev
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim, Stefan suggested you might be the best person to ask about this?
Yes, it is a known bug.
Okay, is the bug in the documentation or the functionality?
Take your pick. The feature is mainly for backward compatibility.
I'd be happy to drop it, e
yuppie wrote:
> In Zope 3 the NameChooser makes sure you can't use content IDs starting
> with '+' or '@'.
>
> Zope 2 doesn't allow '+' in content IDs (actually the error message says
> the ID contains characters illegal in URLs), but you can use content IDs
> like '@@edit.html'. If the lookup ord
I plan to release the next Zope versions around March 28. The release will
basically contain newer Five versions.
-aj
pgpH0qawTOb9h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-d
> yuppie wrote:
>> Zope 2 doesn't allow '+' in content IDs (actually the error message says
>> the ID contains characters illegal in URLs), but you can use content IDs
>> like '@@edit.html'. If the lookup order is changed as proposed
>> (http://codespeak.net/pipermail/z3-five/2006q1/001186.html) th
Chris McDonough wrote:
> >> and should be fixed in Zope 2.8, 2.9 and trunk.
> >
> > We'd be changing Zope 2's behaviour (not fixing a Five bug), I would
> > therefore vote for making this change on the Zope 2 trunk only.
>
> I'd be apt to not further restrict the set of identifiers an OFS content
>
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 02:46 +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Here's what we could do: We factor the name validation part in ObjectManager
> (which is _checkId) out to a namechooser adapter. Five already has one in
> Five.browser.adding. Then, we can also provide an optional namechooser ada
