At 16:09 05/05/22, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
I think the last paragraph of RFC3987, section 5.1 already says that :)
http://rfc.net/rfc3987.html#s5.1.
That also says that fragment components should be excluded. Is that true
for Atom?
It says:
When IRIs are compared
Robert Sayre wrote:
I think the last paragraph of RFC3987, section 5.1 already says that :)
http://rfc.net/rfc3987.html#s5.1.
That also says that fragment components should be excluded. Is that true
for Atom? Are we going to refer to that specification and that section
from 4.2.7.1 in a
Robert Sayre wrote:
I think the last paragraph of RFC3987, section 5.1 already says that :)
http://rfc.net/rfc3987.html#s5.1.
That also says that fragment components should be excluded. Is that true
for Atom?
Where does is say that?
Sorry about that. I should read better before sending
http://atompub.org/2005/04/18/draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.html#rfc.section.4.2.7.1
I was wondering about:
# Likewise,
#
# http://www.example.com/~bob
# http://www.example.com/%7ebob
# http://www.example.com/%7Ebob
#
# are three distinct identifiers, because IRI %-escaping is
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
http://atompub.org/2005/04/18/draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.html#rfc.section.4.2.7.1
I was wondering about:
# Likewise,
#
# http://www.example.com/~bob
# http://www.example.com/%7ebob
# http://www.example.com/%7Ebob
#
# are three distinct identifiers,
On 5/21/05, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
http://atompub.org/2005/04/18/draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.html#rfc.section.4.2.7.1
I was wondering about:
# Likewise,
#
# http://www.example.com/~bob
# http://www.example.com/%7ebob
#
