On 13/09/15 19:03, Mark Sheppard wrote:
I was thinking as a change for all constructors, as there are URL, which
may overload authority part's structural elements such that port might be
a "remote object id", or some other form of token.
On 13/09/15 14:07, Mark Sheppard wrote:
> a more generalized description for MalformedURLException could be
> used, e.g.
>
> if the parsed URL fails to comply with the scheme specific syntax of
> the associated protocol.
But, looking at the code, that is not strictly true for the non-spec
accepting constructors. That is why I asked the question.
-Chris.
OK, that's fine
On 13/09/2015 15:25, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Is this suggested wording for the “spec” accepting constructors? I
think what we have for the constructors accepting protocol, host,
port, etc, is more accurate.
