- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:36:54 -0700
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 4, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: >>> Actually absolute-URI as per RFC 3986 seems to allow a lot more >>> forms than it did in RFC2616. Is this desired? I'd presume not. >>> >>> from RFC 3986 >>> >>> absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] >>> >>> hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty >>> / path-absolute >>> / path-rootless >>> / path-empty >>> >>> >>> e.g. in the old form, the path-absolute, path-rootless, and path- >>> empty forms were not allowed as part of absolute-URI. >> >> Please read the ABNF from left to right. > you mean I should read it as > > hier-part = "//" authority (path-abempty / path-absolute / path- > rootless / path-empty) > > rather than > > hier-part = ( "//" authority path-abempty) / (path-absolute) / > (path-rootless) / (path-empty) > > ? No, I mean you should read it as absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] which clearly shows the scheme and colon before hier-part. hier-part [ "?" query ] is syntactically equivalent to *uric, and thus matches the same set of strings as defined by 2616+2396. ....Roy
Received on Sunday, 5 July 2009 21:37:22 UTC