(crazyinsomniac) Re: Monastery URLs don't need double slashes!

I vote a big loud NO for two reasons. One, the id://0000 syntaxt don't got anything to do with no kinda RFC or nothing nor does pm strive to conform (we're special). Two, it's been in use for a very very very very long time and a change now, for the benefit of one or two lazy monks will cause more confusion and an adjustment period which would annoy a lot of people (most importantly, me).

___crazyinsomniac_______________________________________
Disclaimer: Don't blame. It came from inside the void
perl -e "$q=$_;map({chr unpack qq;H*;,$_}split(q;;,q*H*));print;$q/$q;"

Comment on (crazyinsomniac) Re: Monastery URLs don't need double slashes!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (crazyinsomniac) Re: Monastery URLs don't need double slashes! by mischief (Hermit) on Dec 12, 2001 at 15:45 UTC
It's not about conforming or not about conforming, it's just an idea to make life simpler. At least, as far as I can tell. And what about keeping the old format as well? That way noone would get too confused.	[reply]
Re: Re: (crazyinsomniac) Re: Monastery URLs don't need double slashes! by crazyinsomniac (Prior) on Dec 12, 2001 at 21:14 UTC
...just an idea to make life simpler - not really. Life is not any simpler if you save yourself from typing two extra characters. Life is not golf. Furthermore, I doubt it would be much work to implement this, butt time is scarce for the only person capable of doing this, vroom (or some other gods, but they don't meddle anymore), and whilst the update might be simple, appropriate documentation would have to be updtaed and what not. I still don't like it. If you wan't to save yourself from typing an extra few characters, use a cb client and hack the code yourself. ___crazyinsomniac_______________________________________ `Disclaimer: Don't blame. It came from inside the void` `perl -e "$q=$_;map({chr unpack qq;H;,$_}split(q;;,qH*));print;$q/$q;"`	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: (crazyinsomniac) Re: Monastery URLs don't need double slashes! by mischief (Hermit) on Dec 13, 2001 at 18:26 UTC
Some people might consider it simpler (I would be one of them), and having the choice to leave out the // would benefit those people, no? Of course it's another idea to add on the pile, but isn't that the case with any good idea? And using `id://` isn't confined to the CB - personally I generally use `id://` tags instead of just surrounding text in `[]`s, because I don't like the idea of my post pointing somewhere else in the future when someone posts another node with the same node as I've linked to.	[reply] [d/l] [select]