On Jul 18, 2014, at 17:19, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Kyle J. McKay wrote:
On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:16, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
"Git URLs" as described e.g. in git-clone(1) weren't intended to be
actual URIs.
According to RFC 3968 section 1.1.3:
"A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both. The
term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs"
[...]
So actually they are URIs.
You mean abusing the word URL when we meant URL-shaped thing makes it
into a URL?
That is your contention.
Do you
mean that I should read that RFC and be convinced that what you are
saying about ports is the right thing to do?
It's the right thing to do because it's the standard for how URLs are
expected to behave.
"It's in a standard that you never
intended to follow" is not particularly convincing or relevant.
That is your contention. If it is truly the case that where the Git
documentation uses the "URL" acronym that Git does not actually intend
for "URL" to be interpreted as a "URL" as defined by the various
standards covering such URLs then explicit text needs to be added to
the documentation saying so to avoid confusion. In the absence of
such text, expecting a reader of Git documentation to interpret the
term "URL" any other way is irrational.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html