---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101140/#review2700
---
This review has been submitted with commit
be0cc2198d3c59569705
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101140/#review2699
---
This review has been submitted with commit
a3297d274843c22ee8f5
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101140/#review2686
---
Ship it!
Hmm... did not know KUrl::protocol() already returned
> On April 16, 2011, 4:45 p.m., Kevin Krammer wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to change KProtocolInfo::protocolClass() such
> > that it considers data: to be local access?
>
> Volker Krause wrote:
> That was indeed my first attempt, but David pointed out that this would
> have furth
> On April 16, 2011, 4:45 p.m., Kevin Krammer wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to change KProtocolInfo::protocolClass() such
> > that it considers data: to be local access?
>
> Volker Krause wrote:
> That was indeed my first attempt, but David pointed out that this would
> have furth
> On April 16, 2011, 4:45 p.m., Kevin Krammer wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to change KProtocolInfo::protocolClass() such
> > that it considers data: to be local access?
That was indeed my first attempt, but David pointed out that this would have
further (security) implications, since
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101140/#review2680
---
Wouldn't it make more sense to change KProtocolInfo::protocolCla
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101140/
---
Review request for kdelibs.
Summary
---
Currently KIO::AccessManager
