>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).
>
Yes, the windows and dos version (OS/2 too ?) can't use :, so if we need
to choose a separator we could as well choose something which does
create as few as possible problems on most platforms.
Even if this does mean a slightly different syntax than the classic
protocol:port URI form... since those directories are a sort of reminder
where that data came from there's no _strict_ need to mirror the
original URI imho.
Heiko
--
-- PREVINET S.p.A. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Via Ferretto, 1 ph x39-041-5907073
-- I-31021 Mogliano V.to (TV) fax x39-041-5907087
-- ITALY
