Please ignore the e-mail below. If you do have an opinion about it please follow up on public-appformats@w3.org where it should've gone. Thanks! On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:52:57 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:40:33 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> I recommend that the spec default the port to the default port for the >> given scheme (80 for http:, 443 for https:, etc). > > I believe this was removed based on feedback from implementors. But > maybe we haven't fully considered all the options back then. I think we > should integrate this proposal as to not require authors to specify :80 > on their shared hosting accounts. The new algorithm would work as > follows: > > http://example.org matches against http://example.org:80 but not > http://example.org:81 The port defaults to the default port for the > scheme. > > example.org matches against http://example.org:80, > https://example.org:8000, etc. The scheme and port both act as a > wildcard. > > To make it possible to require a certain scheme but allow access from > any port we can introduce * for port. So you can specify > http://example.org:* which does match http://example.org:81 among others. > > Any opinions? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 22:20:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:58 GMT