----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Becke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PATCH] relative URIs
> Attached is a patch and test case for a few minor bugs I discovered in > the URI(URI, URI) constructor. The patch changes the following: > > - fixes the case when the second arg to URI(URI,URI) is just a fragment > (e.g. "#s"). According to RFC 2396 a relative reference that is just a > fragment should resolve to the "current document" plus the fragment. I > took this to mean that URI( "http://a/b/c/d;p?q";, "#s" ) should resolve > to "http://a/b/c/d;p?q#s";. Please let me know if this seems incorrect. Isn't it? then a bug... :( It seems like query not to be resolved ... > - changes setURI() to no longer ignores fragments, getURI() and > toString() now return the full URI including the fragment. There is getURIReference(). That's not like getURI(). Actually, URI and URI-reference is different... In common, on both protocol and document uses, an URI is effective... not URI-reference. That's why... Sung-Gu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
