Re: Segment production rule

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:53:18 +0800, Raphaël Troncy  
<> wrote:

> Philip (cc-ing the whole group)
>>> Philip,
>>> In revision 1.72, you remove the *segment productions. Why?
>>> Segment is the hat over fragment and query ... since we expect
>>> ultimately to cover both and re-use some bits of syntax.
>>> Why did you remove it?
>> For the reasons stated in the email I sent:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:18:03 +0800, Philip Jägenstedt
>> <> wrote:
>>> E.g. the timeprefix and timeparam syntaxes should be matched against
>>> these
>>> strings, *not* any part of the URI. The timesegment syntax is simply
>>> removed as it (and all other foosegment productions) violates the
>>> layering
>>> of media fragments on top of name-value lists.
>> The *segment productions simply make no sense if we layer media
>> fragments on top of name-value lists, unless we have a way to express
>> "any string that after percent-decoding and UTF-8-decoding is ...".
> There is no violation. Wait that Yves introduces (again!) this  
> production rule and you will see that there is no contradiction.
> You miss the fact that we wanted a generic syntax that works for query  
> and fragments.

If MF is to be modeled on top of a name-value lists, then clearly it is a  
violation of layers for the MF syntax to be concerned with the separators  
used in the layer below.

This *is* a generic syntax that works for both query component and  
fragments, since the definition of fragment and query in the URI spec is  
exactly the same.

Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software

Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 12:02:21 UTC