- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:37:44 +0900
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
At 02:12 04/04/07 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>In appendix A, collected syntax, the production for absolute-URI differs >>from that given in the body text. > >Yep, I missed that -- I wish the collected ABNF could just be generated >from the XSLT. > >>Assuming that the body text production (using hier-part) is correct >>(which I think it is) then the 'path' production is itself not used >>anywhere, hence redundant. > >You are missing the whole point of having it. The text describing >the syntax says their are five possible matching rules for a path, >only one of which will be matched in any URI reference. The spec currently says "The ABNF requires five separate rules to disambiguate these cases, only one of which will match a given URI reference." I think the "in" in your explanation would help quite a bit; the spec would then read: "The ABNF requires five separate rules to disambiguate these cases, only one of which will match in a given URI reference." I'm confident that this "in" can be "smuggled in" during the RFC editor fixup period. Regards, Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 02:27:14 UTC