FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
75% Positive
Analyzed from 1057 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#amp#html#url#query#using#uri#segment#parameters#relative#browser

Discussion (26 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.3
There’s no thought given as far as I can see to the relative URL concepts this matrix proposal covers, but the idea of adding key=value data in this format is supported by the RFC, and indeed in a way that supports further adding sub resources below the current one.Which, by the way, this matrix relative URL proposal seems to ignore - how is ./subpage resolved relative to /map;x=250;y=582 ?
Why in the world this didn't gain traction?
There is no need to have two competing keyword-value-list (KVL) formats in the same context.
If we include this with Matrix URIs, we could have a scheme format that could work with remote data/objects in a convenient and logical way. RESTful APIs do not seem to be quite the same though. Like some universal API ... not sure how it would look.
If my query would be "weather?" then any API should understand this to mean I'd like to return the local weather. But as an API. Naturally we have AI now so any such queries become trivial at all times, but this is still not quite what was meant. We kind of limited things here because "all external input may be malicious". This then meant no further development in this area, because "too dangerous". Every time I try to use JavaScript to read a local file, I am reminded of that as limitation. They did not think that there are valid, non-malicious use cases, so I am using ruby and python rather than JavaScript (I could use node, but it kind of feels ... so dirty when using it).
The question mark indicates you’re making a query. And the ampersand is a boolean operator. You could imagine query params implementing | in addition to &.
Thinking about it, it is a little surprising as, if I remember correctly, in HTML source you should encode & as & right?
The spec states it as: “Attribute values are a mixture of text and character references, except with the additional restriction that the text cannot contain an ambiguous ampersand.”
Whereas in the the days before HTML5 this has been mandatory.
> HTML 4.01 Specification – Appendix B.2.2 “Ampersands in URI attribute values”
https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.2.2
> Unfortunately, the use of the “&” character to separate form fields interacts with its use in SGML attribute values to delimit character entity references.
In HTML escaping & is kind of optional and the browser just tries to figure out what you mean, but if you are doing things properly you should use & in href attributes.
I also recall actually seeing some web pages somewhere using semicolon, possibly IBM stuff.