Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 17:07, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 16:26, Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
>>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>>>> * The representation of a URL should be always URI-encoded.
>>>> Yah. That's how we treat them, in general, but having it declared that
>>>> way would be good. As I noted above, we also want them to *always* be
>>>> absolute. The codebase is pretty darned close to allowing for that.
>>>> Also note that the svn_uri_* functions are new in 1.7, so we can
>>>> define them with this restriction.
>>> Oh hum. That reminds me of my recent changes in svndumpfilter on this
>>> very topic. Svnumpfilter uses "repository-absolute" paths, that is,
>>> paths within the versionable filesystem that always have a leading /.
>>> Clearly those are not dirents; nor are they relpaths; nor, by your
>>> definition above, are they URIs to the intent of the svn_uri API.
>>> They're not URI-encoded, either.
>>> Which leaves me scratching my head, wondering which of the three
>>> inapplicable families of functions svndumpfilter should be using.
>> FS is the odd man out. The leading-slash paths don't fit well with
>> much of anything.
>> It would be nice if it used a relpath [from the root].
> To expand a bit more...
> Bert and I discussed this a few times. Because it isn't a relpath, and
> it isn't a dirent, that is why we use the URI functions for FS paths.
> But once Bert switches on the "must be absolute" bit, then everything
> will fall over. I dunno what his plan was for the FS (he's been
> updating stuff throughout the client, wc, and RA layers).
> We never came up with a good solution. Sigh.
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.
(BTW, URI-encoding them internally is going to cause no end of screaming
horrors. My crystal ball has spoken.)
Received on 2009-11-11 23:26:49 CET