We can certainly use different constructors and different parsers to
achieve each form, where it will get interesting is equality.
The existing URI implementation is more likely to give false negatives,
while RFC 3986 is not likely to, due to its well defined normalisation.
In fact, I'd be in
On 10/07/14 09:11, Peter Levart wrote:
On 07/10/2014 02:50 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Are there parties on this list interested in updating java.net.URI to
RFC3986?
Is there anyone here who has previously attempted this? If so what
issues did you find with regard to backward compatibility?
On 10/07/2014 01:50, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Are there parties on this list interested in updating java.net.URI to
RFC3986?
Is there anyone here who has previously attempted this? If so what
issues did you find with regard to backward compatibility?
Hopefully Michael McMahon will jump in and g
On 07/10/2014 02:50 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Are there parties on this list interested in updating java.net.URI to
RFC3986?
Is there anyone here who has previously attempted this? If so what
issues did you find with regard to backward compatibility?
Regards,
Peter.
Hi Peter,
I think
Are there parties on this list interested in updating java.net.URI to
RFC3986?
Is there anyone here who has previously attempted this? If so what
issues did you find with regard to backward compatibility?
Regards,
Peter.
