Ah, that makes sense now.
It might be helpful to say why they'd be denied (all of them are
invalid access items, correct)? Also, calling this out in a more
prominent fashion may be helpful, especially for casual readers
(apparently like me :) and for non-screen-oriented readers. E.g.,
• https://*.*:80 <-- invalid; only one wildcard allowed
• *://example.org <-- invalid; wildcard not allowed in scheme
• http://example.org/ <-- invalid; trailing slash
• http://example.org/example <-- invalid; path component present
• http://example.org: <--- invalid; port not specified after ':'
or similar.
Cheers,
On 24/01/2008, at 9:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:56:52 +0100, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Also, section 4.1 contains "http://example.org/example"; as a sample
access item; at best this is misleading, and it doesn't appear to
be allowed by the syntax either.
Please read the sentence introducing that example. Also note that "/
example" is highlighted.
(I'm sorry for not responding to this in my initial reply.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
--
Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
