Jan Prikryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Hack Kampbjorn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > I agree. What about https ?
> >
> > What about answering on more than one port like java.sun.com used to do
> > where :80 had a java menu and :81 not. This is a bad example as it was
> > mostly the same web-site
>
> So it seems that we will have to update the path structure to either
>
> protocol/address/port/path
> protocol/address_port/path
>
> The second choice creates one directory less, but somehow the first one
> seems to be more logical ...
I don't see why we would use an '_' instead of a ':' on the second version
(except on Windows if the ':' character is a no-no there).
The first version would be fine if we always put the port, even when it's
80, but I'd rather optimize with:
http://www.site.com/index.html -> http/www.site.com/index.html
http://www.site.com:8080/index.html -> http/www.site.com:8080/index.html
The local pathname is much closer to the original URL that way, too.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To help prevent SPAM contamination,
GNU Wget co-maintainer | please do not mention this email
http://sunsite.dk/wget/ | address in Usenet posts -- thank you.
