- From: Bob Aman <bob@sporkmonger.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:31:10 -0400
- To: Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>
- Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>
> 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 Aman
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:31:51 UTC