Sung-Gu,
Do you approve of this patch?
Sung-Gu wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Becke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PATCH] relative URIs
Attached is a patch and test case for a few minor bugs I discovered in
the URI(URI, URI) constructor. The patch changes the following:
- fixes the case when the second arg to URI(URI,URI) is just a fragment
(e.g. "#s"). According to RFC 2396 a relative reference that is just a
fragment should resolve to the "current document" plus the fragment. I
took this to mean that URI( "http://a/b/c/d;p?q";, "#s" ) should resolve
to "http://a/b/c/d;p?q#s";. Please let me know if this seems incorrect.
Isn't it? then a bug... :(
It seems like query not to be resolved ...
- changes setURI() to no longer ignores fragments, getURI() and
toString() now return the full URI including the fragment.
There is getURIReference(). That's not like getURI().
Actually, URI and URI-reference is different...
In common, on both protocol and document uses,
an URI is effective... not URI-reference. That's why...
Sung-Gu
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
