Re: ERB call on addressing

>> The ERB originally wanted to have something to separate the URL proper
>> from the extended-pointer syntax, which did NOT specify explicitly
>> whether it was the client or the server which should actually do the
>> query.  Would semicolon fit that bill?
>No.  ; is always passed to the server.

Currently, that is.

>Frankly, the server-side fragmenting has nothing to do with XML --
>people are doing it today with HTML, SGML and even PDF, using normal
>existing URLs.  Sometimes (as per Jon's examples) there are no obvious
>query parameters at all.
>Hence you only have to worry about client-side queries, and # is fine
>for that.
>Drop the ?/&/; thing and you'll be fine.  Simply allow them without
>saying what they mean.

I agree with this quite strongly. My main objection to the
ERB proposal is using queries as the *standard* sub-document
addressing scheme, which I believe to be wrong. Give me the
freedom to build the system the way I want, and I'll be happy.


Follow-Ups: References: