|
From: <ke...@us...> - 2002-07-06 00:12:35
|
>O.k. I have been talking about this with the users on my end and for >me at least there is one very useful thing to be gained with the: >://<server>:<port>/filename >syntax. > >And that is the ability to specify a port. Unless there is an option >to specify a different one. This may be a wasteful bit of the slam >protocol as I have it currently defined. But it currently uses one >port per file. So I can't do the :/// trick. Ok, this I agree is a useful facility not currently possible and should be allowed. I'm not against adopting parts of standard syntax that are useful. So I suggest that the parser ignore the host portion and permit a null host portion in the URI. So it would look like: protocol://[host][:port]/tail |
