* David Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the relevant specification is RFC-3986, and especially section 3.
>
> SLP (RFC-2608) gives an example of existing practice using a form like
>
> 9p:tcp://hostname/service/my/path
hmm, is this an valid URL ?
> Subversion uses
>
> svn+ssh://hostname/my/path
Seems some bit unclean to me, if we would put the transport proto
here. It should be as optional as the port. inetd-style port notation
(ie. 123/tcp) could be nice, but would be incompatible.
Why not
9p:/proto/hostname:port/my/path
or
9p://hostname:port.proto/my/path
?
cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
