Carsten Ziegeler skrev:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:It's valid - but it looks strange to me; I would expect a user name after the '@'.what's wrong with e.g. servlet:@com.mycompany.block1.servlet:/...?
Agree. If we look at the details of RFC 2396, '@' only has a specific meaning for hierarchal URI:s and then if they are on the form scheme://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/abs_path. So the above syntax would not be "wrong", still I agree with that it creates the wrong associations.
/Daniel
