> 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) this allows
>> to override views with content objects.
>> I guess this is a bug
> I wouldn't say that. It's just that something Five added (Zope 3 view
> lookup) doesn't work in all cases of legal Zope 2 object names. That's
> Five's problem, not Zope 2's (strictly speaking).
>> 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.
> CCing zope-dev as they will probably have an opinion there as well.
I'd be apt to not further restrict the set of identifiers an OFS content
object can begin with as long as we can get away with it. If a user
happens to enter one that starts with a "view character", I suspect a
developer could just choose to not allow this in at the application level
if he cared (e.g. if he were using Five). It might be reasonable to add
this to CMF instead of Zope, but IMO, it's a bad idea to put theis
particular restriction in either place, as it will almost certainly break
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -