On Wednesday 13 April à 16:04, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 16:07 +0200, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> > On Saturday 09 April à 23:58, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 11:30 +0200, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> > > > the same patch with just outdated comments removed...
> > >
>
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 16:07 +0200, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> On Saturday 09 April à 23:58, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 11:30 +0200, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> > > the same patch with just outdated comments removed...
> >
> > Seems to me there's been a reasonable level of review, an
On Saturday 09 April à 23:58, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 11:30 +0200, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> > the same patch with just outdated comments removed...
>
> Seems to me there's been a reasonable level of review, and that your
> check-in would improve the situation. I'd say go for i
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 11:30 +0200, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> the same patch with just outdated comments removed...
Seems to me there's been a reasonable level of review, and that your
check-in would improve the situation. I'd say go for it.
--
Uche OgbujiFour
the same patch with just outdated comments removed...
--
Sylvain Thénault LOGILAB, Paris (France).
http://www.logilab.com http://www.logilab.fr http://www.logilab.org
--- /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/_xmlplus/sax/saxutils.py 2004-11-29
13:36:36.0 +
the updated patch...
--
Sylvain Thénault LOGILAB, Paris (France).
http://www.logilab.com http://www.logilab.fr http://www.logilab.org
--- /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/_xmlplus/sax/saxutils.py 2004-11-29
13:36:36.0 +0100
+++ cvs_work/_xmlplus/sax/sa
On Friday 08 April à 00:56, Mike Brown wrote:
> Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> > after some times working on other stuff, I've remembered that I had
> > still the prepare_input_source patch pending. I've joined to this
> > message the patch as it is now, and it's well working for me. I'll
> > check it i
Sylvain ThÃnault wrote:
> after some times working on other stuff, I've remembered that I had
> still the prepare_input_source patch pending. I've joined to this
> message the patch as it is now, and it's well working for me. I'll
> check it in in the next few days if no one objects.
I still have
On Thursday 10 February à 13:15, Mike Brown wrote:
> Sylvain Thénault wrote:
>
> > And I've also added the following modification to
> > prepare_input_source since I send it here:
> >
> > @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@
> > source = xmlreader.InputSource()
> > source.setByteStream(f)
> >
Sylvain ThÃnault wrote:
> done. However, does sections of rfc 2396bis match sections of rfc 3986 ?
Yes. There were only very minor editorial changes in the last drafts before
rfc2396bis became RFC 3986.
> I did found them. As I said I've run relevant tests again the restricted
> version of Uri.p
On Wednesday 09 February à 16:06, Mike Brown wrote:
> Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> > thanks a lot. Actually almost all the work is already done right there.
> > Here is what I've worked on. Once we'll reach a consensus, I'll add that
> > to pyxml. So I've joined to this mail:
> >
> > - a light versi
Sylvain ThÃnault wrote:
> thanks a lot. Actually almost all the work is already done right there.
> Here is what I've worked on. Once we'll reach a consensus, I'll add that
> to pyxml. So I've joined to this mail:
>
> - a light version of 4Suite Uri.py including the following functions:
> Split
On Tuesday 08 February à 19:01, Mike Brown wrote:
> Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> > I guess you're right. I wrote this patch because it was fixing my
> > problem. Now if it doesn't take too much time to have every cases
> > correctly fixed by implementing RFC 3986, I may take some time to do so
> > or
Sylvain ThÃnault wrote:
> I guess you're right. I wrote this patch because it was fixing my
> problem. Now if it doesn't take too much time to have every cases
> correctly fixed by implementing RFC 3986, I may take some time to do so
> or to help having it done. And if parts of the job is already d
On Tuesday 08 February à 04:13, Mike Brown wrote:
> Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> > - prepare_input_source('relative.xml', '/base') -> /base/relative.xml
> > the sf submitted patch fix this one to.
>
> Under no circumstances should '/base' + 'relative.xml' ==
> '/base/relative.xml'.
> It would only
Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> Bleah. I guess that's why Mike Brown has had to create fixed versions
> of all the Python stdlib URI functions for 4Suite :-)
Yes. All of the URL functions in stdlib are either undocumented and for use
within stdlib only, or are about 8 years out of date. Or both.
I'm using
Sylvain ThÃnault wrote:
> - prepare_input_source('relative.xml', '/base') -> /base/relative.xml
> the sf submitted patch fix this one to.
Under no circumstances should '/base' + 'relative.xml' == '/base/relative.xml'.
It would only be an acceptable result if you had '/base/' instead of '/base'.
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 18:17 +0100, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> On Monday 07 February à 10:04, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > file:///base + file:relative.xml -> file:///base/relative.xml
> >
> > Since the file scheme's semantics are so wooly. But this wouldn't make
> > sense if you replaced "file" with "ht
On Monday 07 February à 10:04, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 12:18 +0100, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > I've been heating a bug which is already registered as #616431 in the
> > bug tracker. I find it very annoying and I've patched the function to
> > make it work before no
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 12:18 +0100, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I've been heating a bug which is already registered as #616431 in the
> bug tracker. I find it very annoying and I've patched the function to
> make it work before noticing a patch was already available. Is there any
> reason to
Hey,
I've been heating a bug which is already registered as #616431 in the
bug tracker. I find it very annoying and I've patched the function to
make it work before noticing a patch was already available. Is there any
reason to still wait to apply it ?
Anyway I've joined to this mail my version of
21 matches
Mail list logo
