Kevin Layer wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the reason for the removal of default port in the
> canonicalization of URIs was that it makes comparison of URIs easier
> and more useful. There may also have been examples in the RFC that
> had to be equivalent, and that was the motivation for doing it, too.
Kevin and Sean,
I'm pretty sure the reason for the removal of default port in the
canonicalization of URIs was that it makes comparison of URIs easier
and more useful. There may also have been examples in the RFC that
had to be equivalent, and that was the motivation for doing it, too.
At least,
Hi Sean,
Thank you for your patch and message. I've reviewed them. I'm cc'ing a
copy of this message to Franz as they are the upstream author of the
URI package.
Upon first review, I'm happy with the current behavior of URI. My
suspicion is that Franz removes the standard port numbers to
normali
Package: cl-puri
Version: 1.3.1.2-1
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
I've been a bit confounded with PURI's behavor of ignoring port numbers, in
some cases, in values provided to PARSE-URI.
In PARSE-URI's said behavior, I see no purpose but for the saving of a very
small amoung of space, to the proba
4 matches
Mail list logo
