LJSV-1068

[kareila]

LJ just unveiled two features I've wanted here but haven't known how to implement, which are a tag list on the update page, and searching for multiple tags using AND instead of OR.

For the first, am I to assume that the new update page will support this, so we don't need to bother with trying to patch the feature into the old update page? Or perhaps rather that the new update page won't support it immediately, but it will be such a radical change that we shouldn't even bother working on it until then? (I really want this ASAP, and it has appeared on "most wanted".)

For the second, should we roll our own fix adopting LJ's URL syntax, or attempt a codemerge? Here's the syntax for those who missed the announcement:

http://username.livejournal.com/tag/tag1,tag2?mode=and
http://username.livejournal.com?tag=tag1,tag2&mode=and

The URL syntax was what bogged us down on that bug, and this seems like a reasonable solution, plus it's what users of both sites will come to expect.

Links to our Bugzilla:

http://bugs.dwscoalition.org/show_bug.cgi?id=581 (for the tag list)
http://bugs.dwscoalition.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1585 (for multiple tag search)

Comments

[afuna]

The characters, if meant ot be used as ilterals in the tag, will need to be escaped. (So to avoid breaking existing tag urls, we'd need to set up new urls, then have the current tag urls redirect to the new tags, with characters suitably escaped, if necessary)

[kareila]

Ah, I see. In that case, it sounds like we would want to roll our own, and continue to support LJ syntax via a redirect.

It also sounds like the kind of thing that's really hard to do correctly. :x

[afuna]

Hmm. I think it's actually easier, long-term, since it's just a couple of characters that need being redone. We'd need to make sure to reserve the characters early on, though. (Maybe have extras?)

I prefer characters (, and +, - ) to the AND/OR stuff since there's shorter and there's less confusion, but yeah *g*

(I'm kinda distracted so I hope that I'm making sense!)

[kareila]

So comma = OR, + = AND, - = AND NOT? We'd also have to reserve ? and & since that's standard GET syntax, but presumably the current code already does that.

[afuna]

Hmm, well that matches existing syntax. Not sure about ? and & -- or rather, if there is a & but no ?, then it's okay. But the & should be escaped anyway (but escaping & is pretty standard, IIRC)

[alierak]

Don't forget + is already a URI escape character for space.

[afuna]

In the arguments, so /tag/a+b isn't a space, but ?tag=a+b is a space

(Or was it the other way around?)