W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2013

[Bug 20642] [FO30] non-hierarchic URIs

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:42:34 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-20642-523-OkQQ7NULHj@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20642

--- Comment #2 from Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The term "hierarchic" is used in the sense of RFC 3986, which uses the term
> extensively though it does not define it formally.

I read through that, and it does refer to "base URI has a non-hierarchical
path" but I couldn't point to anything obvious in the specification that
identified that non-hierarchical paths meant URIs which match the path-rootless
production.

It's more obvious from the RFC 2396 production:

      absoluteURI   = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )


The text from RFC 3986:

"For some URI
 schemes, the visible hierarchy is limited to the scheme itself:
 everything after the scheme component delimiter (":") is considered
 opaque to URI processing.  Other URI schemes make the hierarchy
 explicit and visible to generic parsing algorithms."

seems to indicate that the hierachic nature is dependent on the scheme.  e.g.
mailto is always non-hierarchic, http is always hierarchic.

> I'm happy to add an informal explanation, e.g. hierarchic URI (in the sense
> of RFC 3986).

Yes please - or a fairly specific reference into the RFC.  Thanks.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 11 January 2013 10:42:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 11 January 2013 10:42:40 GMT