Fwd: Re: 2396bis - new productions

I have created an issue (uri-production-names-40, see
http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit#uri-production-names-40)
to adjust the names of the production in the IRI draft to the changes
in the URI draft.

I have changed isegment-nzc to isegment-nz-nc, and ipath-abs
to ipath-absolute, and have also added the comment for
isegment-nz-nc:
       ; non-zero-length segment without any colon ":"

I have marked this issue as closed.


Regards,     Martin.


>Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:43:41 -0700
>Cc: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
>To: "Hammond, Tony" <T.Hammond@nature.com>
>From: Roy T.Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
>X-Archived-At: 
>http://www.w3.org/mid/B015B6BE-D465-11D8-88C4-000393753936@gbiv.com

>>Well, I'm confused as to what some of these new productions in the -05 draft
>>(of 2396bis) mean. (Thought everything was more or less hunky dory up til
>>-04, apart from allowing dot segment normalizations to be applied across the
>>board on all URI forms - both relative and absolute. Though did have some
>>general sympathies with this in terms of arriving at a greater level of
>>uniformity for the URI spec.)
>>
>>But now I'm totally lost. What does
>>
>>         segment-nz
>>or
>>         segment-nzc
>>
>>mean? ('nz' anyone? - 'nzc'?)
>
>segment-nz means non-zero-length segment.  That should be pretty clear
>when provided the ABNF rules in context.  I'll change the segment-nzc
>to segment-nz-nc, and path-abs to path-absolute.
>
>    segment       = *pchar
>    segment-nz    = 1*pchar
>    segment-nz-nc = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / "@" )
>                  ; non-zero-length segment without any colon ":"
>
>    pchar         = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@"
>
>However, I don't want people to figure them out by looking
>at the terminal names -- I want them to implement the grammar itself,
>which is better defined by reading the ABNF rule than by guessing
>on the basis of the names used; the names are short because I am
>space-constrained to 68 columns.
>
>....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 04:20:29 UTC