On 04/10/2006 10:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > -1 Veto. > > You aren't checking the scheme (other than that we've dumped CONNECT > earlier > in the code) so you don't know that this transform is appropriate. If you > would like to test that scheme applies, you still have the question of > unusual > methods (eg non-GET/non-POST)
No arguing about your veto. I just try to understand it better to address it. So some questions: 1. As I just learned from RFC3986 an empty path is allowed (I was not aware of this before). But why do we set r->uri to "/" in this case? Shouldn't it be NULL too in this case? 2. Do you know any http method where this transformation is wrong or even better for which ones this is correct? 3. Provided the list from 2. is present. Would it address your veto to do this transformation only if r->method_number is one of these methods? Regards Rüdiger
