I see that Mr. Withers knows what I am talking about and I will attempt to address his comments along with those of Mr. von Weitershausen.

My book (http://worldcookery.com) explains them, just look them up in
the index.

Where can I buy a copy for a reasonable price in Berlin?

The examples use the conventions but do not define them. Is there any place in the official or unofficial Zope3 documentation that gives a clear explanation of what seems to be "Zope3 URL traversal syntax?"

Mr. Withers and I are perhaps looking at this in the same context: Zope/Plone users who preparing for the migrating to Zope3 with or without Plone. That said, we appreciate principles such as Plone's clean URL's (http://worldcookery.com/About) as opposed to (http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_top_idx/102-2282457-8274534?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageID=S0DD&asin=3540223592#reader-link)

My question is thus very naive: what is the ++xyz++ and @@xyz syntax and can it be avoided?


Failing to find a clear explanation, I only see a ways for Zope3-based
sites to:

1. Be toyed with by the user.
How so?
"ooo look, pretty shiny things in urls, I wonder what they mean"

Skin variables in URL would be great during development but suggest that the user can make skin selection. Keep in mind I have no idea if ++thisskin++ is required as I cannot find the aforementioned explanation of that syntax. If @@ is for inspection, is this something the public can/should do? Security issues?

2. Fall out of search engines.


Search engines don't particularly like weird characters in urls.
This can be extremely important for some users...

If my Zope2 site uses http://worldcookery.com/About and my Zope3 site uses http://worldcookery.com/++kewlskin++About then the existing links are presumably dead or inaccurate.

 >> 3. Break existing links.

Define "existing link".

That is not a Zope3 convention. Simply every link to a pre-Zope3 site that may have ++'s and @@'s injected into existing, known URL's when the move is made to Zope3. See the above example.

4. Fail the over-the-phone test of URl's...

Can you spell @@ or ++ over the phone? I can.

Yeah, but you're one of the leading Zope developers in the world.
Try explaining it to someone with an IQ of 50 who just about knows what a / (no, the *other* slash) and a . (yeah, the one without the curly bit on the bottom of it) are ;-)

I put this in the same category as Plone's clean URL principle. When you tell a friend about your book, http://worldcookery.com/About is very clear. Amazon's http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_top_idx/102-2282457-8274534?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageID=S0DD&asin=3540223592#reader-link is slightly less so, as with anything in between. Semi-informed users will also assert that URL's don't have +'s or @'s and they probably haven't read RFC2396.

Plus, no one says ++ and
@@ have to occur in a public view of Zope 3 site. Go to
http://worldcookery.com. You won't see much of @@ or ++.

Good, I'd love to know how to produce a whole Zope 3 app without these weird appendages...
(and yes, I know why they're there, doesn't mean I like 'em any more ;-)

I'm still trying to figure out why they're there. :) My Zope Fu is not yet worthy. That should be obvious by now.

That depends on your application based on Zope. You can try to avoid
generating URLs with @@ and ++, but we generally don't consider these
URLs harmful in any way.

Try to avoid or avoid? Mr. Withers seems to agree that clean URL's are a good thing, along with the Plone team.

 > Plus, if I can stop worrying, what wonderful things do they do for me?

It's all spelled out in the links above.

 I highly suggest someone put something in the FAQ about these.

Sounds like you want to volunteer :)

Happy to once I "get it" but alas, I still don't. I do sincerely appreciate Zope's overall use of precise terminology but that terminology must be spelled out very carefully in layman's terms if you are to not frustrate the uninitiated.


Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to