Davi Arnaut wrote:
It is legal. And Nick is right, that should be fixed in apr_uri. I will send a patch tomorrow.
Once again, you describe the http: scheme. Let's be careful about our assumptions, and ensure we don't further constrain apr_uri to the http behavior :) I'm all for apr_uri 'doing the right thing'. We may *also* want to fix (on 2.2) the ap_fn - because we do *not* insist on any particular apr (other than apr 1.2.0 and later). But fixing in apr would ensure we need not leave such a patch on trunk/, because we can then insist on apr 1.3 and later for httpd 2.3/2.4. Bill
