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

Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-02

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 04:33:03 -0400
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030525083301.GD20776@ccil.org>

Roy T. Fielding scripsit:

> This would be a good time to review the specification.

The reference to Appendix G in section 1 should be to Appendix E.

The draft does not actually say that a URI must conform to the grammar
specified by the rule named "URI".

In the 3rd paragraph of section 2.2, for "in all URI" read "in all URIs".

Section 2.4.1 does not state that escapes in the range %00 to %7F are
to be understood as US-ASCII encodings, which seems unnecessarily vague.
It should further be specified that the mapping of escapes in the range
%80 to %FF is not defined by this RFC.  Furthermore, it is not specified
that the second and third octets of the escape correspond to the high
and low order nybbles of the US-ASCII value and not vice versa.

IMPORTANT:  I strongly object to the change in the interpretation of
relative URIs that are empty or consist solely of a fragment identifier.
For good and bad, the plain language of RFC 2396 whereby these are
relative to the current document rather than the current base URI has
prevailed for the last five years.  Changing it merely out of a sense
of theoretical neatness undermines the stability of interpretation in
documents which contain relative URIs of this form.  At the very least
further justification is required.

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  jcowan@reutershealth.com
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2003 04:33:42 GMT

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