[Bug 27257] anyURI_b006 seems to be valid

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27257

--- Comment #4 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
I have some sympathy with Georgiy on this one. XSD 1.0 references RFC 2396. The
problem is that RFC 2396 is a mess.

When I raised this as a bug in bug #4048, I was probably influenced by the fact
that the java.net.URI class rejects "//", with the error:

java.net.URISyntaxException: Expected authority at index 2: //

I suspect that the designers of class java.net.URI noted that very often when
the RFC mentions the term "authority", it means a non-empty authority. Examples
of this usage are: "A base URI without an authority component", "some URI
schemes do not allow an <authority> component", "If the authority component is
defined".

The Javadoc comments for java.net.URI say:

"This constructor parses the given string exactly as specified by the grammar
in RFC 2396, Appendix A, except for the following deviations:

(1) An empty authority component is permitted as long as it is followed by a
non-empty path, a query component, or a fragment component. This allows the
parsing of URIs such as "file:///foo/bar", which seems to be the intent of RFC
2396 although the grammar does not permit it. If the authority component is
empty then the user-information, host, and port components are undefined.

(2) ..."

So I think the justification for rejecting "//" is the belief that RFC 2396
doesn't mean what it says.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 14:37:38 UTC