Re: Feedback on Access Control

Ah, that makes sense now.

It might be helpful to say why they'd be denied (all of them are  
invalid access items, correct)? Also, calling this out in a more  
prominent fashion may be helpful, especially for casual readers  
(apparently like me :) and for non-screen-oriented readers. E.g.,

	• https://*.*:80   <-- invalid; only one wildcard allowed
	• *://example.org  <-- invalid; wildcard not allowed in scheme
	• http://example.org/   <-- invalid; trailing slash
	• http://example.org/example    <-- invalid; path component present
	• http://example.org:   <--- invalid; port not specified after ':'

or similar.

Cheers,



On 24/01/2008, at 9:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:56:52 +0100, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com 
> > wrote:
>> Also, section 4.1 contains "http://example.org/example" as a sample  
>> access item; at best this is misleading, and it doesn't appear to  
>> be allowed by the syntax either.
>
> Please read the sentence introducing that example. Also note that "/ 
> example" is highlighted.
>
> (I'm sorry for not responding to this in my initial reply.)
>
>
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> <http://www.opera.com/>

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com