Hi!
> I think the use of the ?? would not be a good URI scheme. However, maybe we
> could simply make the VFS parameters unique. For example add vfs. in front
> of them.
>
> For example,
> http://www/path/cgi-bin/send.pl?FILE=ABC&TYPE=PDF&vfs.proxyHost=proxy.host&vfs.proxyPort=8080
>
Yes, for
Mario
I think the use of the ?? would not be a good URI scheme. However, maybe we
could simply make the VFS parameters unique. For example add vfs. in front
of them.
For example,
http://www/path/cgi-bin/send.pl?FILE=ABC&TYPE=PDF&vfs.proxyHost=proxy.host&vfs.proxyPort=8080
or
ftp:/fremantle.
Hi!
> I think we should leave it upto the scheme to decide. So http may
> decide to pass it to the server, while ftp may decide to use it to
> talk to the server. i.e. each implementation will know the options
> they understand, enforce them and pass any remainder to the server.
> How does that s
Hi Mario
I don't quite agree with this - this may be the common case for HTTP,
but the URI spec does not enforce it.
Ok, but how should we differentiate between these both use-cases?
I think we should leave it upto the scheme to decide. So http may decide
to pass it to the server, whil
Hi!
> I don't quite agree with this - this may be the common case for HTTP,
> but the URI spec does not enforce it.
Ok, but how should we differentiate between these both use-cases?
If we would like to allow this style of URL we need some special
delimiter to know what to pass to VFS as configura
