Long time no see... ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Becke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Commons HttpClient Project" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: URI specification
> I definitely agree that it would be best if URI had its own home
> outside of HttpClient. My impression was that we would try to have it
> removed by 2.1 but I see that it is not deprecated. Perhaps that is
> due to the luke warm reception it has received from the commons
> community at large. I agree this might be a good time to drum up some
> support for a separate URI package. Any takers?
>
> 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.
For the right above comment, the reminder will be following:
Revision 1.29 / (view) - annotate - [selected] , Thu Jan 30 03:20:04 2003 UTC (4
months, 1 week ago) by jericho
Branch: MAIN
Changes since 1.28: +28 -20 lines
Diff to previous 1.28 (colored)
- Throw an parsing exception, when there is no more higher path level.
Suggested by "Eric Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Imagine, for example, that your client application follows a link in
an HTML that generated this URL, and the file "g" actually exists on
the server. Everything will appear to be operating correctly, but it
is not."
Reported by "Armando Anton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think we can suggest them to consider the above point.What If I'm allowed, I'll look
into the draft documents...Sung-Gu> 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]> >
