comp.mobile.ipad is available on individual.net
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Snow Leopard (10.6.2) fails to launch anything after login
Next: can't get Parallels Desktop 5 back on the net
From: Adam H. Kerman on 27 Mar 2010 16:49 Ian Gregory <ianji33(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On 2010-03-27, Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote: >>Gee, Larry, I would have liked to checked out all the links you posted >>except that you don't know how to post links. Yet another Dozer Fandroid >>who can't comply with standards. >Unless I am mistaken, enclosing URLs in <> is not a standard as such, >though it is common practice. Unless you can point to the specification? Uh, Ian, if you put a line boundary right smack in the middle of the URL, it's no longer a URL. Line boundary characters are illegal. I don't know where it originated, but angle brackets have long been used as delimiters in Internet message format (email messages and its related format News articles) for Message-IDs and email addresses. RFC 1738 Uniform Resource Locators [URLs] makes a reference: The characters "<" and ">" are unsafe [in URLs] because they are used as the delimiters around URLs in free text . . . and In addition, there are many occasions when URLs are included in other kinds of text; examples include electronic mail, USENET news messages, or printed on paper. In such cases, it is convenient to have a separate syntactic wrapper that delimits the URL and separates it from the rest of the text, and in particular from punctuation marks that might be mistaken for part of the URL. For this purpose, is recommended that angle brackets ("<" and ">"), along with the prefix "URL:", be used to delimit the boundaries of the URL. This wrapper does not form part of the URL and should not be used in contexts in which delimiters are already specified. This document is from 1994. There's probably an original reference on the w3c site (the Web's home organization) but I don't spot it. The whole point of using angle brackets, and not other brackets, is because the use of angle brackets as wrappers is well known to programmers who write parsers. If you use an unknown or an undefined delimeter, then it will appear to the parser as not part of the wrapper and the parser will see illegal characters in the URL and will fail to parse the URL. Don't use other bracket characters as delimiters.
From: Warren Oates on 27 Mar 2010 18:20 In article <holr0e$h9c$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk(a)chinet.com> wrote: > Don't use other bracket characters as delimiters. Another idiot heard from. Hi Michelle. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Adam H. Kerman on 27 Mar 2010 22:25 Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk(a)chinet.com> wrote: >>Don't use other bracket characters as delimiters. >Another idiot heard from. >Hi Michelle. While Michelle has made numerous idiotic statements in these threads, she made no comment about the delimiting URLs. You owe her an apology, "Warren".
From: Adam H. Kerman on 27 Mar 2010 22:31 Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >Ian Gregory <ianji33(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>On 2010-03-27, Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote: >>>Gee, Larry, I would have liked to checked out all the links you posted >>>except that you don't know how to post links. Yet another Dozer Fandroid >>>who can't comply with standards. >>Unless I am mistaken, enclosing URLs in <> is not a standard as such, >>though it is common practice. Unless you can point to the specification? >It's already been pointed out where delimiting (to use the technical >term) of URLs is defined. >The allowed delimiters are <>'s "'s and spaces, but "'s can often be >problematic as many programs or systems will attempt to 'smarten' the >quotes, which usually screws up the delimiting and spaces are >problematic because most systems will insert sapces into URLs when >trying to wrap text. The best and safest choice is <>'s. NB: many >systems will still screw up bracketed URLs, but fewer than will screw up >the others. I do not know of a convention that uses single or double quotes as delimiters. Spaces work great. Every parser must understand that spaces are boundaries between words. Spaces are illegal in URLs, so there's no ambiguity. As far as parsers that see word boundaries within URLs at punctuation marks to insert line boundaries, I'd call those broken.
From: david hillstrom on 27 Mar 2010 22:44
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:31:54 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk(a)chinet.com> wrote: >Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >>Ian Gregory <ianji33(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>>On 2010-03-27, Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote: > >>>>Gee, Larry, I would have liked to checked out all the links you posted >>>>except that you don't know how to post links. Yet another Dozer Fandroid >>>>who can't comply with standards. > >>>Unless I am mistaken, enclosing URLs in <> is not a standard as such, >>>though it is common practice. Unless you can point to the specification? > >>It's already been pointed out where delimiting (to use the technical >>term) of URLs is defined. > >>The allowed delimiters are <>'s "'s and spaces, but "'s can often be >>problematic as many programs or systems will attempt to 'smarten' the >>quotes, which usually screws up the delimiting and spaces are >>problematic because most systems will insert sapces into URLs when >>trying to wrap text. The best and safest choice is <>'s. NB: many >>systems will still screw up bracketed URLs, but fewer than will screw up >>the others. > >I do not know of a convention that uses single or double quotes as >delimiters. Spaces work great. Every parser must understand that spaces >are boundaries between words. Spaces are illegal in URLs, so there's no >ambiguity. > >As far as parsers that see word boundaries within URLs at punctuation marks >to insert line boundaries, I'd call those broken. <poke> <run> -- dave hillstrom zrbj mhm15x3 Approved by Bax |