- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:04:05 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
On 12/22/2014 08:50 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> >>> Validity according to RFC 3986 can be mechanically checked; why do we >>> need to "mark" something here? >> >> If there is a program I can use to mechanically check for RFC 3986 >> compliance and shows how a given URI is to be interpreted (scheme, host, >> path, query, fragment, etc.), I'll gladly update my results. > > RFC 3986 has a regexp that's expected to parse valid URIs consistent > with the ABNF; see > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.B>. That is indeed a regular expression. I'll even grant that it seems likely to handle valid URIs correctly. My concern is that it also processes a large number of invalid URIs, for example: "http://192.168.0.257" > To change that to a validity checker, we probably just need to restrict > the character classes so that non-ASCII characters never match. > > (I can give this a try over the next week( Go for it! > Best regards, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 14:04:56 UTC