On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 11:07, Karl Fogel wrote:
> cmpilato@red-bean.com writes:
> > I hate to say it, but I'm +1 on changing file:// to our own registered
> > (or practically-registered-by-way-of-unique-use) protocol scheme.
>
> +0 from here. It's not causing *us* a problem, right now, but we're
> violating a standard unnecessarily. Maybe it's causing confusion.
Wellll... a URL indicates a resource, not an action. For instance,
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn does one thing if you feed it as an
argument to "svn co", and another thing if you feed it as a location to
your web browser. The fact that web browsers only support one action
doesn't really have to constrain URLs.
If we're doing it because file:///repos-path/path isn't really a file, I
guess I'm okay with that. If we're doing it because we think Mozilla
won't know which of several things to do with a file URL, then I'm not
as sure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 30 20:59:25 2002