- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:50:03 +0200
- To: (wrong string) Óra <dehora@eircom.net>
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, 11:21:15 PM, Bill wrote: Bdh> Chris Lilley wrote: >> Sure, but if its not a URI then its useless inside the JDK as well. Bdh> Demonstrably not true. These things are useful, they're just not Bdh> URL/Is. No, Its harmful in the JDK as well **if it says its a URI* (which it does) because this encourages people to use the URI in other contexts. >> Details welcome. Bdh> This isn't relevant to the jar: 'scheme', Bdh> but as you asked, some of the problems have been or are: Bdh> [snipped] (thanks) Bdh> But the main point is this - even if this was real URI, the JAR Bdh> support code simply does not require a jar:http: prefix - http: Bdh> would do just as well (or even jar: ) I agree http would do as well since that is actualy the protocol used. jar: would fall into the itunes trap. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 18:50:34 UTC