Reg-name conflict between 2396 and 3986

An issue has been raised with Xerces's schema validation of certain 
kinds of URIs that appear to be legal in 2396 and illegal in 3986. See 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1060 for details.

Briefly it appears that an indefinite number of colon and @ characters 
were allowed in reg-names in RFC 2396 and forbidden in RFC 3986.
This doesn't seem to be called out as a change in D2 of 3986.

For instance, dcp.tcp.pft://192.168.0.1:1002:3002?fec=1&crc=0 is legal 
in 2396 and not in 3986.

Was this decision deliberate? Or did it accidentally fall out of other 
changes made to the BNF grammar? Or am I missing something obvious, and 
this URI is legal (or illegal) in both RFCs?

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim

Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 16:28:39 UTC