Re: An Anchor attribute question:
"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 19:02:18 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <9406021655.AA17627@ulua.hal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: An Anchor attribute question:
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
In message <199406021639.AA22281@oit.gatech.edu>, Michael Mealling writes:
>
>Ok, I've added a couple of lines to HTParse.c that fix this and a few
>other things that the current URL spec breaks:
ACK! You changed HTParse.c to grok IETF URLs rather than WWW URI's?!?!
I don't think that's a very good idea. Now you've got a piece of
code that doesn't match the URI spec any more!
>in scan() I added these two lines just before the line
>after_access = name;:
>
> if(!strncmp(name,"URL:",4))
> name=name+4;
>
>This takes care of the current URL spec that requires URL: in front of
>a URL. Normal WWW URLs still work normally.
Blech. Hack. Barf. Who writes HREF="URL:..."? Why?
>This fixes the apparent small bug that causes URN:bla:bla: to get fouled up.
Why is this a bug? That code is written to the URI spec, and per
the URI spec, URN:blah:blah: is garbage.
Change the URN syntax, not the HTParse() code.
Dan