Chris Withers wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>> 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"

Right. What's the problem though? You can toy with Zope 2 URLs as well.
If the app is properly built, it won't be a problem. If it is, your app
is vulnerable against URL spoofing and the problem certainly won't lie
with @ and +.

>>> 2. Fall out of search engines.
>> Why?
> Search engines don't particularly like weird characters in urls.

@ and + are not "weird" characters in URLs. They're allowed by the spec
and I'd be surprised if they actually are a problem. So far, this is all

>>> 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 ;-)

Then you'd have a problem of spelling ANY url or email address to those
people. Again, hand-waving.

>> Plus, no one says ++ and
>> @@ have to occur in a public view of Zope 3 site. Go to
>> 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...

The same way you produce a Zope 2 app: make sure view names and content
names don't clash and you're all set.


Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to