As far as compliance goes we're looking pretty good. The only test cases that do not work with HttpClient URI are "../../../g" and "../../../../g". I will look into these.
Mike
On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 03:35 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
Folks,
It looks like this directly applies to us (see below). It also raises a
question of how we go about URI support in the future. Since Sung-Gu has
pretty much retired from the project (he's been a no-show on this list
for several months already), URI stuff is ripe for a take over. Spinning
it off into a Commons project of its own would be the best option. I
think this may be the right moment.
Ideas, thoughts, comments?
Oleg
PS: Sung-Gu, if you are still monitoring this mailing list, please let us know
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: URI specification Date: 09 Jun 2003 12:06:13 -0700
I submitted draft 03 of the URI spec revision on Friday. It can also be obtained via the issues list at
http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/issues.html
This draft is close to final, with maybe a few editorial changes left before going to IESG last call. It would be nice if the Apache software projects were checked/updated for conformance. Please let me know if any implementations that should be listed when I send the IESG documentation on independent implementations.
If you find a bug, please tell me within the next two weeks.
Cheers,
....Roy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
