W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 2003

Re: http://///////////////

From: Diwakar Shetty <diwakar.shetty@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:57:08 +0530
Message-ID: <3E40D8EC.2228697@oracle.com>
To: Ian Clelland <ian@veryfresh.com>
CC: www-talk@w3.org


This works on Apache

Diwakar

Ian Clelland wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:04:08PM +0530, Diwakar Shetty wrote:
> > Is the following valid HTTP ??
> >
> > telnet web_server_host http_port
> > GET http://///////////////    HTTP/1.0
> 
> I think that this would be syntactically valid HTTP, at least
> according to the definition of 'absoluteURI' in RFC1945 (S3.2.1),
> *except* that the scheme is specified as 'http', and it violates
> S3.2.2, since a hostname is required (and it must be at least one
> character long).
> 
> However, I believe that all of these close alternatives are valid:
> 
> GET /////////////// HTTP/1.0
> 
> (since /////////////// is a valid relativeURI)
> 
> GET http://a/////////////// HTTP/1.0
> 
> (since 'a' is a valid hostname, http://a/////////////// becomes a
> valid http URI)
> 
> GET xyz://///////////// HTTP/1.0
> 
> (since the 'xyz' schema is not defined anywhere, this is a valid
> absoluteURI, although no HTTP server would know what to do with it)
> 
> Can I ask what inspired the question in the first place? Is this a real-world discovery, or just an excercise in pathological URIs?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ian Clelland
> <ian@veryfresh.com>
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 04:26:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT