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

RE: uri-comp draft necessary?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:14:15 +0100
To: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Cc: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>, "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEIDGAAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Stefan Eissing
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 4:34 PM
> To: Bill de hÓra
> Cc: Paul Prescod; Dare Obasanjo; WWW-Tag
> Subject: Re: uri-comp draft necessary?
>
>
>
>
> Am Donnerstag, 19.12.02, um 15:49 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Bill de
> hÓra:
>
> > 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.
>
> Ok, its not in 2396. It's in 2616,  Ch. 3.2.3:

Actually, RFC2396 says that scheme names *are* lowercase (para 3.1):

	"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 ("-")."

Only then it goes on saying...:

	"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")."

Julian


--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 11:15:10 GMT

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