> Specifically, I would suggest the same syntax as Roy, but with an > expansion operator `&` instead of `?`, which never produces a > leading question mark itself. Then I would declare bare `?`, `&`, > and `;` (outside of expansions) primary operators (like `{}`), > whose trivial effect is to output themselves – unless they’d end > up as the last character in the expanded URI, in which case they > produce *no* output. (Of course if several such optional > characters bunch up at the end, they’re *all* dropped.) I really like the idea of never having to worry about the case of: /path/to/something? +1 Bob AmanReceived on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:31:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:13 UTC