- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:54:13 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4234 ------- Comment #1 from mike@saxonica.com 2007-01-16 13:54 ------- I think the processor has some latitude on this one. The XML Schema spec says that after escaping it must be a "legal URI according to [RFC 2396], as amended by [RFC 2732]. The term "legal URI" isn't actually used or defined in those specs. This URI conforms to the "general syntax" for URIs described in section 3 of the RFC, but not to "hierarchic syntax" used for http URIs. The Schema spec says in a non-normative note that "Each URI scheme imposes specialized syntax rules for URIs in that scheme, including restrictions on the syntax of allowed fragment identifiers", and that minimally-conforming processors are not expected to validate against these specialized syntax rules; but it's not clear that this Note makes it wrong for a processor to check that a URI in the http scheme adheres to the syntax of a hierarchic URI.
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 13:54:23 UTC