- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 00:54:33 -0800
- To: uri@bunyip.com
To fix the misinterpretation of double-scheme URIs
^(([^/?#]+):)?(//([^/?#]*))?([^?#]*)(\?([^#]*))?(#(.*))?
should be
^(([^:/?#]+):)?(//([^/?#]*))?([^?#]*)(\?([^#]*))?(#(.*))?
since scheme is obviously not allowed to contain a ":" anyway.
BTW, I would appreciate it if people could inform the URN WG that there
cannot be a "urn:" prefix -- it is either the scheme or an error, unless
they have somehow discovered the ability to transport back in time.
I still think it is unnecessary, of course, but continuing to waffle
on the issue is pointless.
....Roy
Received on Saturday, 28 December 1996 03:58:27 UTC