Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of benewu@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=hGcEhzrOeqDStGChZnnYdNHNaQPzzdG+oV6xZC6MXZiu3h82QPXJ5GLZAS/OSD2GnY
         UMRP7PMdK6IWx75gW20845G5Mjo0sS5X4GF36no8nB3qB03k5hzwBumvqR0k39PnEjql
         kqQpIGA2g9mO/VlPfITFN2z/qLZS2Fh2LtA6o=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F3727A35-3D63-4336-8F26-3637DF463ECA@gmail.com>
References: <4db64d890910140128m51edcae5o8e8871cc29523ce5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <cdbebedf0910151000w240d423s6fdc0411197f63d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa2d9f450910151009k618015fbi317123dc0c0a8d81@mail.gmail.com>
	 <cdbebedf0910151014r63d4c6f4s2a89d610e6dd8752@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa2d9f450910151016m654ac912w23c0c3613d0e4248@mail.gmail.com>
	 <cdbebedf0910151030o5a201da0x4cc4ed5b53c1c047@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa2d9f450910151032x3c5be68bs221ac0dd2aa91542@mail.gmail.com>
	 <68f4a0e80910151139t62c36002k818f020db7b3e780@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c7fc82820910151310j85230f0ocfc28999ac631a3c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <F3727A35-3D63-4336-8F26-3637DF463ECA@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:54:29 +0800
Message-ID: <4db64d890910151754g24acfb05s8eca27ac5bbf15b7@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ESME-26 The message parser should ignore # in urls
From: Xuefeng Wu <benewu@gmail.com>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636b2aea2a538e1047602d6b2

--001636b2aea2a538e1047602d6b2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree that move it to 1.1. Enhance conversation is more interesting than
this.


On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Anne Kathrine Petter=C3=B8e <
akpetteroe@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just checked Jira to see which tasks are included in the 1.0 release an=
d
> # 26 is included.
> Should we move it to 1.1?
> If it turns out to be a roadblock for 1.0 I suggest we move it, if not
> let's leave it and do it if we feel we have the time and resources for it=
.
>
> /Anne
>
>
> On 15. okt. 2009, at 22.10, Vassil Dichev wrote:
>
>  I think rendering and parsing issues are probably fairly important for
>>> a 1.0 release in general, as I take "1.0" to be saying "This is ready
>>> for actual deployments to end-users" and non-developer users tend to
>>> be fairly unforgiving about rough edges in presentation. On the other
>>> hand, respecting anchors in URLs may be something we can live without.
>>>
>>
>> I'd like to remind you that there is a workaround, which is known (I
>> think it was documented in the old google code issue). You can escape
>> the hash symbol- instead of "#", write "%23". Admittedly, this is not
>> very intuitive or easy to remember, and it also doesn't work where
>> URLs are automatically posted by the RSS/Atom action.
>>
>
>


--=20
Scala=E4=B8=AD=E6=96=87=E7=A4=BE=E5=8C=BA:  http://groups.google.com/group/=
scalacn

--001636b2aea2a538e1047602d6b2--