DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32762>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32762 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-19 01:07 ------- OK, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if it's not good enough to just check for a colon, then we should just bung a 'cocoon:/' onto the front, and let any resulting error happen downstream? E.g., Resource Not Found: cocoon:/http://whatever What I was trying to do was preserve the error here that says "hey, the flow redirector takes 'cocoon:/' only" -- except now either by default or explicitly instead of implicit-only. Why do you want to throw out this check? I mean it would be fine for me personally I guess :-), but the downside is that we exchange an error message that told people what was wrong and why, with one that makes it look (to the initiate) like Cocoon is broken ("why is it prepending 'cocoon:/' onto my URI, that's not what I want!?!"). The other downside of course is that the implicit 'cocoon:/' makes some URIs _look_ like something totally different than what they are. For example, cocoon:/foo:/something is a valid URI, but the 'unconditional implicit scheme' approach forces the user to write that as foo:/something which makes it look like the scheme is 'foo'. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
