- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:08:35 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 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 2014-12-22 15:04, Sam Ruby wrote: > 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" That is true; there'll be false positives; but that's still better than having to checks at all :-) That being said, I once mapped the normative ABNF to regexps and processed them in XSLT; see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc/uris/>; I can try to leverage that to create a proper regexp from that. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 14:09:22 UTC