I don't like either suggestion; how about synopsis://xx, apocalypse://xx, exegesis://xx?
If I said (and I did) that I find "aes://" too much typing, then I think you can guess very easily what I think about this. Even linking to http://tnx.nl/S03 is easier than using these way-too-long words. I want it to be simple, so it gets more natural to link to the stuff. The same way we are used to wrapping [] around perldocs and perlfunc items, but not around module names. We need something short, preferrably without any scheme.
| [reply] |
Things without any protocol:// will only link to local nodes; I don't see the point of special-casing something to work differently, when this is exactly the kind of problem the protocol: form was meant to solve. I actually wouldn't have any objection to someone creating nodes for each of those documents (with links to the live versions and a possible-staleness warning), but I hope they'd name them in full (i.e. Synopsis 3: Summary of Perl 6 Operators, not S03), so that doesn't really solve your problem.
After more thought, I'd like to avoid even reserving things like synopsis:// for just perl6 documents; maybe we'd want it to mean something different at some other point. p6aes://xx may be as good as you are going to get...
I would like to see the requirement for // after the colon go away, though...
| [reply] |
I would like to see the requirement for // after the colon go away, though...
A node title of "cpan: the final frontier" doesn't sound that unlikely. We certainly already have nodes with titles matching /^\w+:/ but I'd like to disallow (and may have already) node titles matching m#^\w+://#. So I like the required //. It makes the alternate syntax more distinct. For example, typing [asdf://asdf] produces [asdf://asdf] because it is considered an invalid pseudo-scheme not a link to a node by title. A mere colon shouldn't be enough for such a distinction.
| [reply]
[d/l] |