Kevin Layer wrote: > I'm pretty sure the reason for the removal of default port in the > canonicalization of URIs was that it makes comparison of URIs easier > and more useful. There may also have been examples in the RFC that > had to be equivalent, and that was the motivation for doing it, too.
Thanks for the thoughts, Kevin. I agree that such normalization can be useful. Sean, while I understand your arguments, I think the benefits of normalization outweigh the downside. Mostly, because RFC1700 is so clear about that the port shall be for the protocol if it is not explicitly stated. If it's important to your application, I'm glad to add a special variable like *RETAIN-EXPLICIT-DEFAULT-PORT-SPECIFICATION* to alter the behavior of PURI. Let me know. Thanks again for the info, Kevin. Kevin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
