Hi,
cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>
> We already have a quoting mechanism: URI encoding. As long as we
> choose a character which is required to be escaped by the r00lz of
> URIs, then when we see that character prefixing a revision indication,
> we know one of two things:
>
> a) the user is passing an invalid URI to the program, or
> b) the user is indication a revision as part of his URI
>
> If we default to (b), then we can fail gracefully when we attempt to
> valid that the "revision" portion is non-numeric, or doesn't match the
> strings "HEAD", "BASE", etc. If it just so happens that they have a
> real path which contains that character and a revision-looking thing,
> then we have a ready defense: "You didn't pass a valid URI, and the
> invalid URI you *did* pass just happened to look like one of our combo
> URI+revision strings."
Yes, but this makes URL+revision strings invalid URIs, by design.
You really want to specify the revision _within_ the URI.
Jan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 22 10:50:37 2003