Re: [RFC] Paths API (svn_dirent_uri.h) - improvements

Branko Cibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> писал в своём письме Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:26:22
+0300:

> Why not just drop the must-be-absolute requirement? Those are perfectly
> valid URIs, as per spec, they simply lack the schema and server part.

Well, if we're talking about the spec (which, I assume, is RFC 3986), then
they are in fact not URIs, but relative URI references.

> (BTW, URI-encoding them internally is going to cause no end of screaming
> horrors. My crystal ball has spoken.)

Well, if there are separate sets of functions for handling relative OS
paths and relative URI references and there are conversion functions which
do the necessary escaping/unescaping, then nothing can go wrong. ;=]

It's possible that there will be problems with different representations
of the same URI reference, so a canonical representation might be needed.
I'm not familiar enough with the internals to judge whether it's actually
a problem.

Roman.

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2416838
Received on 2009-11-12 01:44:35 CET