relative URLs (was: rapidsvn feedback)

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 08:05:02AM -0700, Peter Davis wrote:
> On Thursday 01 August 2002 06:17, brane@xbc.nu wrote:
>...
> > Becasue many commands accept either an URL or a working copy path, so there
> > must be a way to distinguish the two. It would be slightly horrible if "svn
> > cp" required the %%, but "svn switch" didn't. Consistency is always good.
>
> I understand that %% would have to be required for the command line. But in
> RapidSVN, it should be easy enough for you to label a field as a "URL", which
> could imply that if you give an absolute path, the "%%" is implied (but not
> disallowed, for consistency). RapidSVN should be able to be "smart" when it
> can, whereas a "smart" command line client is just annoying.

IMO, we shouldn't use "%%" in any situation (although I could bend for the
cmdline). That form just isn't a standard URL.

When you have a GUI, where there is no ambiguity about what was typed in,
then you allow users to enter a relative URL, and use the standard URL
composition guidelines to establish the absolute URL. The only tricky part
is decided what the "base" is for the relative URL to be useful. The RFC
actually covers some of how to defined a base URL.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org