On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Pascal Obry wrote:Hey, it's find if you can come up with some *other* case why we should care about RFC 1738. I certainly didn't mean to bring up browsers as the _only_ case of possible interoperability issues, but when it comes to URL's it's certainly the obvious one... So the only argument really is: - Nobody has pointed to *any* reason to follow 1738. - I have pointed to reasons *not* to do it. So if you want to follow the RFC, you'd better give a real reason. And no, the existence of an RFC, and the fact that people use the same name for things that superficially _look_ the same is not a reason in itself. So hands up, people. Anybody who asked for RFC quoting. Give a damn *reason* already! Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Amit K. Arora | [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.25-rc4 |
| Greg KH | Linux 2.6.25.10 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Ilpo Järvinen | Re: Strange Application bug, race in MSG_PEEK complaints (was: Bug#513695: fetchma... |
