- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:23:43 -0600
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2013-02-08 23:48, Zhong Yu wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2013-02-01 19:37, Zhong Yu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> If user clicks a URL http://example.com//abc, the browser should send >>>> >>>> GET //abc HTTP/1.1 >>>> Host: example.com >>>> >>>> However the latest bis draft seems to forbid "origin-form" to start with >>>> "//" >>>> >>>> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-21#section-5.3 >>>> >>>> origin-form = path-absolute [ "?" query ] >>>> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.3 >>>> >>>> path-absolute ; begins with "/" but not "//" >>>> >>>> I couldn't find anything in RFC 3986 that accurately describe the path >>>> part that we really want, which should be >>>> >>>> path-xxx = "/" *( "/" / pchar ) >>>> >>>> HTTP probably need to define this term. It'll also help people to >>>> finally refer to this thingy with a proper name. >>>> >>>> Zhong Yu >>> >>> >>> >>> We have >>> >>> origin-form = path-absolute [ "?" query ] >>> >>> with >>> >>> path-absolute = "/" [ segment-nz *( "/" segment ) ] ; >>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#path> >>> >>> Using >>> >>> origin-form = "/" [ segment *( "/" segment ) ] [ "?" query ] >> >> >> This should work too >> >> origin-form = 1*( "/" segment ) [ "?" query ] >> >> >>> >>> ...seems to be the minimal change (or can we simplify that production >>> further without losing readability?) >>> >>> Best regards, Julian > > > Proposed patch: > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/431/431.diff> > > ...I ended up defining a new production, for the absolute path, because > other parts of the spec refer to it in prose. I like the term "absolute-path". I think absolute-path = 1*( "/" segment ) will make the intention more obviously. > > Feedback appreciated, > > Julian >
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 16:24:10 UTC