Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> I've identified four options which I think I could live with:
>
> (1) svn:ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
> (2) svn://svn.collab.net:ext/repos/svn/trunk
> (3) svn://svn.collab.net:0/repos/svn/trunk
> (4) svnext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
>
> Options 1 and 2 break the common URL syntax (not the fundamental URL
> syntax, which is just scheme:scheme-specific-part, but the "common
> internet scheme syntax" syntax used for HTTP, FTP, and so on). The
> first option breaks it by adding extra crud, of course, and the second
> option breaks it by using a non-numeric port specification. Option 3
> does not break the common URL syntax but is maybe a bit too magic.
> Option 4 does not break the common URL syntax but eats a second URL
> scheme, which might be considered antisocial.
Options (2) and (3) are non-starters imho, only because they eat the
obvious place to put an alternate port number in the URL.
Regarding option (1), what about things like
svn_at_ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
svn+ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
svn=ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
? Is that kosher to do in the `scheme' portion of a URL? (I'm not so
much worried about RFC standards here, as about confusing users to
whom colon is already significant.)
No real problem with option (4), except that the uninitiated might
read it as "SV Next" :-). But I'd prefer anyway to stay within one
scheme (`svn') and hang the tunnel bit off that scheme in a more
obviously bit-ish way.
Just some thoughts,
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 4 18:10:27 2002