W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2002

Re: uri-comp draft necessary?

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:49:44 +0000
Message-ID: <3E01DC88.1060805@eircom.net>
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
CC: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>

Stefan Eissing wrote:

> I think Dare's point was well made:
> 
> For HTTP servers and proxies, http://example.com/ and 
> HTTP://example.com/ must
> be equivalent URIs. 
> They have to follow RFC 2396 in that. 

I couldn't find anything in rfc2396 that says HTTP and http must be 
treated as equivalent, it does say they should be treated as 
equivalent, but that's a different level of specification.

[[[
3.1. Scheme Component

Just as there are many different methods of access to resources,
there are a variety of schemes for identifying such resources.  The
URI syntax consists of a sequence of components separated by 
reserved characters, with the first component defining the semantics 
for the remainder of the URI string.

Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters beginning with a
lower case letter and followed by any combination of lower case
letters, digits, plus ("+"), period ("."), or hyphen ("-").  For
resiliency, programs interpreting URI should treat upper case 
letters as equivalent to lower case in scheme names (e.g., allow 
"HTTP" as well as "http").

scheme        = alpha *( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )

Relative URI references are distinguished from absolute URI in that
they do not begin with a scheme name.  Instead, the scheme is
inherited from the base URI, as described in Section 5.2.

]] [1]

As anside, the second para isn't consistent with the production.

Bill de hÓra


[1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 09:51:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:14 GMT