Monday 16th April, 2012
Does anyone know if there is any problem with using a ":" within a http URL, for the *target* part of the path.
as such, the URL doesn't have any relation to physical disk paths.
I have the above working on a server, and browsers I've tested do not seem to have any problem with the URL, but I'm wondering more at large, if there are issues with it, in general.
It will be used from within applications (java, .net, php & rebol) much more than from users manually using it within a browser bar.
rebol doesn't url encode the character, so it seems like its a valid character, but I don't want to assume, if some standard toolset doesn't like the color in the target.
color == colon :-)
rfc1738 says ":" is a reserved character for possible special meaning in some schemes. It does not seem to have any special meaning in the schemes mentioned in that URL.
But its reserved status means that it does not have to be encoded in any URL.
That's the theory, anyway. Practice may show otherwise.
The iMatix guys use it for both zeromq stuff and wikidot.
true, good references, so I won't panick about it then :-)
Wednesday 18th April, 2012
to-url is your friend
Are you sure Max?
>> x: to-url "@@@"
all the string-based datatype convertion funcs are flawed in some un-expected ways. for example, you can to-word a lot of strings which aren't valid words.
this is why I asked. Although R2 doesn't complain, it doesn't mean tis valid or expected.
R3 did some housecleaning in type convertion consistency, but it has some flaws left (and I expect we will keep finding new ones).
Last message posted 89 weeks ago.