On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Darren New wrote: >> >> "active:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@ffcpl:/pictures/boxes.png" >> I'm not sure that's even a valid URL, or that if it is the scheme is going >> to be "active".
A glance at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html suggests to me that it is legit. For instance mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] is. (Note no //) and + is a reserved character that may separate relative segments so it looks OK to me. etc. You may argue the aestetics but I think they got the standard right. > Indeed, shouldn't that be > > active://mylogin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]&image=ffcpl:/pictures/boxes.png > > or something? I mean, if you're going to build a "REST-Oriented Computing" > architecture, at least use standard URI formattting. IMHO you are confusing a common form of URI with the standard. Please RTFM. Mas tarde, yo voy ahorita. BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
