- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:49:06 +1100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
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
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 11:49:51 UTC