On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Julian Foad wrote:
> Daniel Rall wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Fredrik Arnerup wrote:
> >>In 1.3.1, svn switch does not seem to consider "svn://server:/foobar"
> >>and "svn://server/foobar" to be the same repo.
> [...]
> >>Can anyone confirm this? Should I file a bug report?
> >
> >Many common tools (Firefox, CVS, etc.) handle this format. Section
> >3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of RFC 2616 are slightly at odds with each other on
> >this topic, suggesting first that the colon should only be included
> >with a port number, then going on to say that a colon which lacks a
> >port number should be treated identically as one without for
> >comparison purposes.
>
> I don't see any inconsistency.
I was referring to the BNF, which makes it looks like both are
necessary:
http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
> Both sections talk about when the "port ... is empty or not given",
> and in the syntax notation the "port" in '[ ":" port ]' is defined
> as zero or more digits if you follow the reference to RFC2396.
...
+1, agreed.
We could crib some URL parsing code from httpd to handle this for both
ra_svn and ra_dav as necessary, instead of doing straight strcmp()'s.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Fri Jun 30 20:33:45 2006