Is there any concensus out there that the
repository URI proposals are the right/wrong way to go?

The only sticking point I'm aware of at the moment, is
the product-specifier part of the URI, i.e,
    repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/"
                     version-specifier "/" artifact-specifier

1.  product-specifier = organisation "/" project
    organisation = pchar+
    project = pchar+


2.  product-specifier = path_segments

So far, form [1] seems to be preferred as it supports URI parsing.
I prefer [2] as it allows better representation of project
I'm attaching a sample repository structure for [1].
A sample for [2] can be found here:[EMAIL PROTECTED]&ms

If someone with a public webspace can extract them both (Adam?),
that would be great.



Attachment: repoform1.tar.gz
Description: Binary data

Reply via email to