ID:138148
 
Hyperlink data in BYOND is stored in the URL after the '#' character. This has started to irritate me, because standard URL syntax dictates that everything after the '#' is actually client data which does not get transmitted to the server. The standard is to pass server data after the '?' character.

This comes up now because I have need for storing some client data in a URL to distinguish between whether Dream Seeker should upgrade the requested resource before connecting to it. (Users would not be concerned about this. It's just a URL generated internally by the software that the user can click on.)

Anyway, the reason I bore you (my fellow pedant) with these details is that I plan to phase out '#' and replace it with '?' in standard BYOND syntax. We will be able to retain backwards compatibility for the most part until everyone has converted over.

The big question, however, is whether "Topic()" is a good word for what it does. I have sometimes thought that Hyperlink(), Href(), or Query() might be better. Of course, this is pure anality, because it works just fine, whatever the name, so it is probably a mute point. But I can't help considering it at the same time that we shift the URL syntax a little bit. If somebody out there likes Topic(), then that will make me feel better about doing the wise thing and leaving it well enough alone:)


--Dan

The big question, however, is whether "Topic()" is a good word for what it does. I have sometimes thought that Hyperlink(), Href(), or Query() might be better. Of course, this is pure anality, because it works just fine, whatever the name, so it is probably a mute point. But I can't help considering it at the same time that we shift the URL syntax a little bit. If somebody out there likes Topic(), then that will make me feel better about doing the wise thing and leaving it well enough alone:)

I like Topic() just fine. Feel better?

In response to Guy T. (#1)
On 3/1/01 10:54 am Guy T. wrote:
The big question, however, is whether "Topic()" is a good word for what it does. I have sometimes thought that Hyperlink(), Href(), or Query() might be better. Of course, this is pure anality, because it works just fine, whatever the name, so it is probably a mute point. But I can't help considering it at the same time that we shift the URL syntax a little bit. If somebody out there likes Topic(), then that will make me feel better about doing the wise thing and leaving it well enough alone:)

I like Topic() just fine. Feel better?

I don't see a reason to change it -- Topic() is used for multiple purposes, some of which don't have to involve a URL, so I think any term will be equally inaccurate but Topic() is a nicer word than most of them.