[Zope3-Users] Re: I fold. What are ++etc++ and ++resource++ etc?

[Michael Dexter]

Hello,

I see that Mr. Withers knows what I am talking about and I will 
attempt to address his comments along with those of Mr. von 
Weitershausen.

>My book (http://worldcookery.com) explains them, just look them up in
>the index.

Where can I buy a copy for a reasonable price in Berlin?

The examples use the conventions but do not define them. Is there any 
place in the official or unofficial Zope3 documentation that gives a 
clear explanation of what seems to be "Zope3 URL traversal syntax?"

Mr. Withers and I are perhaps looking at this in the same context: 
Zope/Plone users who preparing for the migrating to Zope3 with or 
without Plone. That said, we appreciate principles such as Plone's 
clean URL's (http://worldcookery.com/About) as opposed to 
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_top_idx/102-2282457-8274534?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageID=S0DD&asin=3540223592#reader-link)

My question is thus very naive: what is the ++xyz++ and @@xyz syntax 
and can it be avoided?

Thus:

>>>Failing to find a clear explanation, I only see a ways for Zope3-based
>>>sites to:
>>>
>>1. Be toyed with by the user.
>>How so?
>"ooo look, pretty shiny things in urls, I wonder what they mean"

Skin variables in URL would be great during development but suggest 
that the user can make skin selection. Keep in mind I have no idea if 
++thisskin++ is required as I cannot find the aforementioned 
explanation of that syntax. If @@ is for inspection, is this 
something the public can/should do? Security issues?

>>>2. Fall out of search engines.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Search engines don't particularly like weird characters in urls.
>This can be extremely important for some users...

If my Zope2 site uses http://worldcookery.com/About and my Zope3 site 
uses http://worldcookery.com/++kewlskin++About then the existing 
links are presumably dead or inaccurate.

>  >> 3. Break existing links.
>>
>Define "existing link".

That is not a Zope3 convention. Simply every link to a pre-Zope3 site 
that may have ++'s and @@'s injected into existing, known URL's when 
the move is made to Zope3. See the above example.

>>>4. Fail the over-the-phone test of URl's...
>>
>>Can you spell @@ or ++ over the phone? I can.
>
>Yeah, but you're one of the leading Zope developers in the world.
>Try explaining it to someone with an IQ of 50 who just about knows 
>what a / (no, the *other* slash) and a . (yeah, the one without the 
>curly bit on the bottom of it) are ;-)

I put this in the same category as Plone's clean URL principle. When 
you tell a friend about your book, http://worldcookery.com/About is 
very clear. Amazon's 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_top_idx/102-2282457-8274534?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageID=S0DD&asin=3540223592#reader-link 
is slightly less so, as with anything in between. Semi-informed users 
will also assert that URL's don't have +'s or @'s and they probably 
haven't read RFC2396.

>>Plus, no one says ++ and
>>@@ have to occur in a public view of Zope 3 site. Go to
>>http://worldcookery.com. You won't see much of @@ or ++.
>
>Good, I'd love to know how to produce a whole Zope 3 app without 
>these weird appendages...
>(and yes, I know why they're there, doesn't mean I like 'em any more ;-)

I'm still trying to figure out why they're there. :) My Zope Fu is 
not yet worthy. That should be obvious by now.

>That depends on your application based on Zope. You can try to avoid
>generating URLs with @@ and ++, but we generally don't consider these
>URLs harmful in any way.

Try to avoid or avoid? Mr. Withers seems to agree that clean URL's 
are a good thing, along with the Plone team.

>  > Plus, if I can stop worrying, what wonderful things do they do for me?
>
>It's all spelled out in the links above.
>
>>  I highly suggest someone put something in the FAQ about these.
>
>Sounds like you want to volunteer :)

Happy to once I "get it" but alas, I still don't. I do sincerely 
appreciate Zope's overall use of precise terminology but that 
terminology must be spelled out very carefully in layman's terms if 
you are to not frustrate the uninitiated.

Thanks,

Michael.