W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2003

Re: FW: Questions about RFC 2396

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:34:55 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030226123015.00a20910@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org

At 09:12 AM 2/24/03 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>I take that back... the tests embedded in the docs
>can accomodate this sort of thing; I added:
>
>[[[
>     Note the relationship between refTo and join:
>     join(x, refTo(x, y)) == y
>     which points out certain strings which cannot be URIs. e.g.
>     >>> x='http://ex/x/y';y='http://ex/x/q:r';join(x, refTo(x, y)) == y
>     0
>
>     So 'http://ex/x/q:r' is not a URI. Use 'http://ex/x/q%3ar' instead:
>     >>> x='http://ex/x/y';y='http://ex/x/q%3ar';join(x, refTo(x, y)) ==
>y
>     1
>]]]

This is at odds with Roy's RFC2396bis draft, section 3.3 [1], which 
explicitly allows a ':' in a path segment.   (And probably RFC2396, which I 
haven't checked.)

And, for coverage, I'll offer another test case:

   ('http://ex/x/y', 'http://ex/x/p=q:r', 'p=q:r'),

#g
--

[1] 
http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#rfc.section.3.3


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 10:57:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT