From: K. G. <kim...@gm...> - 2008-10-21 13:31:25
|
Hi Glyn, On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 14:23, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...> wrote: > >> There were also some implicit assumptions that the URI was for HTTP, >> with path normalization, etc. I've removed that, so that clients will >> need to translate empty path to "/" if necessary, and the same with >> the port number. > > Do you still intend to keep the host/port in the fusion map? How do you > intend to deal with URIs like this: > > file:///home/user/myfile.txt > mailto:som...@ex... Yeah, I've been wondering the same thing lately... I'm afraid to even suggest subtyping of some kind :-) >From what I've gathered from the RFC and other places, everything after the scheme prefix is scheme-specific, so I don't know if it makes sense to try and parse differently-schemed URIs the same way at all. - Kim |