On 3/13/13 4:23 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Under RFC 3986, it would resolve to

   jar:http://example.com/Bar.class

If you assume that this is a hierarchical scheme and that the hierarchy is in some particular place, no? Why is that assumption being made?

Looks like a broken scheme to me.

I'm not going to try to claim jar: is a wonderful thing. It is what it is. It needs to not break.

-Boris

Reply via email to