Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005, at 01:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
block:super://blah.xml
A very simple remark, I don't want to criticise...
I'm already slightly upset about the cocoon:// protocol, as it
does not follow the URI RFC properly, I'd like to address the problem
as early as
On Apr 4, 2005 10:26 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005, at 01:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
snip/
As all URI discussions tend to provoke strong feelings for Stefano, it's
best to say directly that this question is not important enough for
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005 10:26 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005, at 01:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
snip/
As all URI discussions tend to provoke strong feelings for Stefano, it's
best to say directly that this
On 4 Apr 2005, at 16:26, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005, at 01:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
block:super://blah.xml
A very simple remark, I don't want to criticise...
I'm already slightly upset about the cocoon:// protocol, as it
does not follow the URI RFC
On Apr 4, 2005 11:16 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005 10:26 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005, at 01:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
snip/
As all URI discussions tend
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005, at 16:26, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005, at 01:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
block:super://blah.xml
A very simple remark, I don't want to criticise...
I'm already slightly upset about the cocoon:// protocol, as it
does not
Pier == Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pier I'm already slightly upset about the cocoon:// protocol,
Pier as it does not follow the URI RFC properly, I'd like to
Pier address the problem as early as possible...
Pier http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
I don't know if
Colin Paul Adams wrote:
Pier == Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pier I'm already slightly upset about the cocoon:// protocol,
Pier as it does not follow the URI RFC properly, I'd like to
Pier address the problem as early as possible...
Pier
On 4 Apr 2005, at 18:09, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
Pier == Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pier I'm already slightly upset about the cocoon:// protocol,
Pier as it does not follow the URI RFC properly, I'd like to
Pier address the problem as early as possible...
Pier
Daniel == Daniel Fagerstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel cocoon:foo/bar
Daniel where foo/bar is called a root less path. But I don't
Daniel find any explanation about what it is supposed to mean.
Well, it could mean anything the protocol inventor intended.
Not all URI schemes
Colin Paul Adams wrote:
Daniel == Daniel Fagerstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel cocoon:foo/bar
Daniel where foo/bar is called a root less path. But I don't
Daniel find any explanation about what it is supposed to mean.
Well, it could mean anything the protocol inventor
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
The only problem I have with block:super://blah.xml is that // in an
URI indicates the start of the authority part, and this is defined as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port, and no matter how you see it, block:...anything...
_is_ a URI, and thus should follow its spec...
Pier
On 31 Mar 2005, at 01:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
block:super://blah.xml
A very simple remark, I don't want to criticise...
I'm already slightly upset about the cocoon:// protocol, as it does
not follow the URI RFC properly, I'd like to address the problem as
early as possible...
13 matches
Mail list logo
