On Tue 21 Jun 2016 15:22, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo skribis:
>
>> I would like to apply this patch, to master at least. Any objections?
>> We need documentation for the new exports, is the only missing thing.
>
> On a quick glance that looks good. My only concern would
Andy Wingo skribis:
> I would like to apply this patch, to master at least. Any objections?
> We need documentation for the new exports, is the only missing thing.
On a quick glance that looks good. My only concern would be
incompatibilities; for instance, the ‘content-location’ can now be an
I would like to apply this patch, to master at least. Any objections?
We need documentation for the new exports, is the only missing thing.
Andy
On Sat 16 Mar 2013 15:25, Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 13 March 2013 19:05, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> What's the status here, Daniel? Would be nice to fi
On Sat 16 Mar 2013 15:25, Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 13 March 2013 19:05, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> What's the status here, Daniel? Would be nice to fix this bug one way
>> or another for 2.0.8.
>
> Latest work attached, updated as per discussion with Mark.
Looks good but needs more docs for me to
On 13 March 2013 19:05, Andy Wingo wrote:
> What's the status here, Daniel? Would be nice to fix this bug one way
> or another for 2.0.8.
Latest work attached, updated as per discussion with Mark.
Still missing #:base-uri (RFC 3986 #5.2) and some polish.
For the docs, I believe it best to foll
What's the status here, Daniel? Would be nice to fix this bug one way
or another for 2.0.8.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 24 February 2013 18:45, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> I would argue that Absolute-URIs are more often appropriate in typical
>> user code. The reason is that outside of URI-handling libraries, most
>> code that deals with URIs simply use them as universal pointers,
>> i.e.
On 24 February 2013 18:45, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Daniel Hartwig writes:
>> * Terminology
>>
>> The terminology used in latest URI spec. (RFC 3986) is not widely used
>> elsewhere. Not by Guile, not by the HTTP spec., or other sources.
>> Specifically, it defines these terms:
>>
>
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> * Terminology
>
> The terminology used in latest URI spec. (RFC 3986) is not widely used
> elsewhere. Not by Guile, not by the HTTP spec., or other sources.
> Specifically, it defines these terms:
>
> - URI: scheme rest ... [fragment]
> - Absolute-URI: scheme
