[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited

From: Tom Lord
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:08:37 -0800 (PST)

    > From: Robert Collins <address@hidden>

    > schemes aren't parameterised: they accept parameters in the
    > query_part.

Schemes aren't _not_ parameterized.  The RFC is simply silent on the

Putting this or any other parameter in a query part or parameter part
would mean that the scheme-specific parts of our URLs would not be
compatible with sftp: and file: schemes -- which seems gratuitous to

    > section 5 - the BNF (an extract follows).
    > scheme ":" scheme-specific-part
    > scheme=3D alpha *( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )

Right.   As I corrected myself to zander:

        file.uname077   not     file%uname=077
        sftp.uname002   not     sftp%uname=002

    > That said, section 2 and 2.1 are quite clear - the scheme is a method of
    > access to the location in question. If you write a cgi-on-http protocol,
    > which can then be used to obtain access to arbitrary objects, you need a
    > new identifier.

Right, like the `http-fs' scheme and `http-fs.unameXXX' schemes I suggested.

    > The key point I am making is that the protocol scheme is not
    > parameterised under any circumstance. 

Nothing says that.  In fact, we _already_have_ parameterized schemes
in the case of:

        wu-ftp:         vs.     ftp:

    > That said, I cannot find a umask command for sftp - only a 'lumask'
    > command which sets the local umask.

The protocol allows you to change file attributes.

    > Essentially: we were both wrong.

So far it looks like I was wrong only on a small matter of syntax :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]