Re: [css] uri vs. url

[Bjoern H. <der...@gm...>]

* Robin Berjon wrote:

Grmbl, I dunno what Sourceforge people do to their listman, but it's now
IIRC the third time settings get screwed. Could you please take a look
at them and let the listman change the Reply-to header to send replies
only to the list? Thanks.

>On Sunday 21 October 2001 18:31, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>    CSS::SAC search for uri() functions (for the namespace declaration),
>> those don't exist in CSS, it's a historical "misnomer", i.e. it's url().
>> Is this intended? Should I go and fix it in CVS?
>
>I can find three possible occurences of the problem in the current cvs 
>CSS-SAC, on lines 103, 565, and 570. It isn't intended and a previous scan 
>actually eliminated a number of these problems.

Three? Oh, yes, the %FUNC_MAP, I'll patch that, too.

>Note that LexicalUnit.pm has a URI constant. This may or may not be a 
>misnomer as well.

URI is fine there, just the function name matters.

>If it is, then the best thing would probably be to add a 
>URL constant, but not to delete the current one (for back-compat). 
>TestWriter.pm, Writer.pm may also exhibit similar problems.

Yes...

>Finally, the test file probably has the same problem and should be changed 
>accordingly with the code.
>
>Go ahead and patch Bjoern !

Done.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bj...@ho... } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/