- From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@Bunyip.Com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:48:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, jcurran@bbn.com, harald.t.alvestrand@uninett.no, moore@cs.utk.edu, uri@Bunyip.Com, urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com
- Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.971224143332.28624D-300000@beethoven.bunyip.com>
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I very carefully reviewed (c) and found it totally unacceptable.
> There was no point in a line-by-line review since all of the changes
> were foolish.
^^^^^^^
I find that this, and other of your remarks and allegations, significantly
reduce the quality of this discussion. Please endeavour to stick
to facts, not feelings.
For the rest of the URI mailing list, which hasn't had the opportunity to
see the material that Roy has referred to, I attach copies of the documents
in question.
The history is as follows:
. as the URI mailing list will have seen, when Roy changed the
URL syntax document to a URI syntax document by doing a global
search and replace on the string "URL", I promised to review
the document and bring comments.
. in an effort to be clear, concrete, and concise, those comments
were accompanied by proposed edits to the draft. Specifically,
I suggested splitting into a URI document for things that
are common to URLs and URNs, and a URL document for those
things that are pertinent to URLs but not URNs.
The intention was to make sure that my edits hadn't inadvertently compromised
URLs before submitting these as drafts and circulating them to the wider
community.
I don't have any ego tied up in these documents -- Larry suggested I put
my name on as author, and I'm willing to accept blame for my contribution
of content.
However, all I want to achieve is to ensure that the URN WG's work is
not undermined by any document that calls itself a URI document. A
preferred solution would be Keith's earlier proposal for a _brief_ URI
syntax document, and separate, detailed URL and URN syntax documents.
These edits are proposed as a compromise in the interest of alacrity.
Leslie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"_Be_ Leslie Daigle
where you
_are_." Bunyip Information Systems
(514) 875-8611
-- ThinkingCat leslie@bunyip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Working Group T. Berners-Lee, MIT/LCS
INTERNET-DRAFT R. Fielding, U.C. Irvine
draft-fielding-uri-syntax-01 L. Masinter, Xerox Corporation
Expires six months after publication date L. Daigle, Bunyip Information
Systems Inc.
December 16, 1997
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in
progress.''
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net
(Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East
Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact string
representation of a location (URL) or name (URN) for use in
identifying an abstract or physical resource. This document defines
the general syntax and semantics of URIs, including both absolute and
relative forms, and guidelines for their use; it revises and replaces
the generic definitions in RFC 1738 and RFC 1808.
1. Introduction
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) provide a simple and extensible
means for identifying a resource. This specification of URI syntax
and semantics is derived from concepts introduced by the World Wide
Web global information initiative, whose use of such objects dates
from 1990 and is described in "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW"
[RFC1630]. The specification of URIs is designed to meet the
recommendations laid out in "Functional Recommendations for Internet
Resource Locators" [RFC1736] and "Functional Requirements for Uniform
Resource Names" [RFC1737].
This document updates and merges "Uniform Resource Locators"
[RFC1738] and "Relative Uniform Resource Locators" [RFC1808] in
order to define a single, general syntax for all URIs. It excludes
those portions of RFC 1738 that defined the specific syntax of
individual URL schemes; those portions will be updated as separate
documents, as will the process for registration of new URI schemes.
Further specification of syntax details for URLs and URNs are
provided in [RFC???? -- URL Syntax] and [RFC2141] respectively.
This document does not discuss the issues and recommendation for
dealing with characters outside of the US-ASCII character set
([ASCII]); those recommendations are discussed in a separate
document.
All significant changes from the prior RFCs are noted in Appendix C.
1.1 Overview of URIs
URIs are characterized by the following definitions:
Uniform
Uniformity of syntax and semantics allows the mechanism for
referencing resources to be independent of the mechanism used
to locate those resources and the operations applied to those
resources once they have been located. New types of resources,
access mechanisms, and operations can be introduced without
changing the protocols and data formats that use URIs.
Uniformity of syntax means that the same identifier is used
independent of the locale, character representation, or
system type of the user entering the URI.
Resource
A resource can be anything that has identity. Familiar
examples include an electronic document, an image, a service
(e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a
collection of other resources. Not all resources are network
"retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound
books in a library can also be considered resources.
The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity or set of
entities, not necessarily the entity which corresponds to that
mapping at any particular instance in time. Thus, a resource
can remain constant even when its content---the entities to
which it currently corresponds---changes over time, provided
that the conceptual mapping is not changed in the process.
Identifier
An identifier is an object that can act as a reference to
something that has identity. In the case of URIs, the object
is a sequence of characters with a restricted syntax. An
absolute identifier refers to a resource independent of the
context in which the identifier is used, whereas a relative
identifier refers to a resource by describing the difference
within a hierarchical namespace between the current context
and an absolute identifier of the resource.
Having identified a resource, a system may perform a variety of
operations on the resource, as might be characterized by such words
as `access', `update', `replace', or `find attributes'.
1.2. URI, URL, and URN
A URI can be further classified as a Locator (URL) or Name (URN).
URLs are used to `locate' resources by providing an abstract
identification of the resource location (i.e., by using common
network name resolution mechanisms to identify the mechanisms for
accessing a resource). URNs are used to identify a resource by a
location-independent name.
Many URI schemes have been defined. The scheme defines the
namespace of the URI, and thus may further restrict the syntax and
semantics of identifiers using that scheme.
Although many URL schemes are named after protocols, this does not
imply that the only way to access the URL's resource is via the named
protocol. Gateways, proxies, caches, and name resolution services
might be used to access some resources, independent of the protocol
of their origin, and the resolution of some URLs may require the use
of more than one protocol (e.g., both DNS and HTTP are typically used
to access an "http" URL's resource when it can't be found in a local
cache).
A URN differs from a URL in that it's primary purpose is persistent
labelling of a resource with an identifier. That identifier is
drawn from one of a set of defined namespaces, each of which has
its own set name structure and assignment procedures. If a URN
is to be resolved to a resource, at least one name resolution pass is
required in order to access the resource. This provides the ability to
ensure the identifier's persistence via a level of redirection. The
"urn" scheme has been reserved to establish the requirements for a
standardized URN namespace, as defined in "URN Syntax" [RFC2141] and
its related specifications.
Most of the examples in this specification demonstrate URLs, since
they allow the most varied use of the syntax and often have a
hierarchical namespace. A parser of the URI syntax is capable of
parsing both URL and URN references as an opaque URI. Once the scheme
is determined, the scheme-specific parsing can be performed on the
remaining URI components. In other words, the URI syntax is a superset
of the syntax of all URI schemes.
1.3. Example URIs
The following examples illustrate URIs which are in common use.
ftp://ftp.is.co.za/rfc/rfc1808.txt
-- ftp scheme for File Transfer Protocol services
gopher://spinaltap.micro.umn.edu/00/Weather/California/Los%20Angeles
-- gopher scheme for Gopher and Gopher+ Protocol services
http://www.math.uio.no/faq/compression-faq/part1.html
-- http scheme for Hypertext Transfer Protocol services
mailto:mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch
-- mailto scheme for electronic mail addresses
news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
-- news scheme for USENET news groups and articles
telnet://melvyl.ucop.edu/
-- telnet scheme for interactive services via the TELNET Protocol
1.4. URI Transcribability
The URI syntax was designed with global transcribability as one of
its main concerns. A URI is a sequence of characters from a very
limited set, i.e. the letters of the basic Latin alphabet, digits,
and a few special characters. A URI may be represented in a
variety of ways: e.g., ink on paper, pixels on a screen, or a
sequence of octets in a coded character set. The interpretation of
a URI depends only on the characters used and not how those
characters are represented in a network protocol.
The goal of transcribability can be described by a simple scenario.
Imagine two colleagues, Sam and Kim, sitting in a pub at an
international conference and exchanging research ideas. Sam asks
Kim for a location to get more information, so Kim writes the URI
for the research site on a napkin. Upon returning home, Sam takes
out the napkin and types the URI into a computer, which then
retrieves the information to which Kim referred.
There are several design concerns revealed by the scenario:
o A URI is a sequence of characters, which is not always
represented as a sequence of octets.
o A URI may be transcribed from a non-network source, and thus
should consist of characters which are most likely to be able
to be typed into a computer, within the constraints imposed by
keyboards (and related input devices) across languages and
locales.
o A URI often needs to be remembered by people, and it is easier
for people to remember a URI when it consists of meaningful
components.
These design concerns are not always in alignment. For example, it
is often the case that the most meaningful name for a URI component
would require characters which cannot be typed into some systems.
The ability to transcribe the resource identifier from one medium to
another was considered more important than having its URI consist
of the most meaningful of components. In local and regional
contexts and with improving technology, users might benefit from
being able to use a wider range of characters; such use is not
defined in this document.
1.6. Syntax Notation and Common Elements
This document uses two conventions to describe and define the syntax
for Uniform Resource Identifiers. The first, called the layout form, is
a general description of the order of components and component
separators, as in
<first>/<second>;<third>?<fourth>
The component names are enclosed in angle-brackets and any characters
outside angle-brackets are literal separators. Whitespace should be
ignored. These descriptions are used informally and do not define
the syntax requirements.
The second convention is a BNF-like grammar, used to define the
formal URI syntax. The grammar is that of [RFC822], except that
"|" is used to designate alternatives. Briefly, rules are separated
from definitions by an equal "=", indentation is used to continue a
rule definition over more than one line, literals are quoted with "",
parentheses "(" and ")" are used to group elements, optional elements
are enclosed in "[" and "]" brackets, and elements may be preceded
with <n>* to designate n or more repetitions of the following
element; n defaults to 0.
Unlike many specifications which use a BNF-like grammar to define the
bytes (octets) allowed by a protocol, the URI grammar is defined in
terms of characters. Each literal in the grammar corresponds to the
character it represents, rather than to the octet encoding of that
character in any particular coded character set. How a URI is
represented in terms of bits and bytes on the wire is dependent upon
the character encoding of the protocol used to transport it, or the
charset of the document which contains it.
The following definitions are common to many elements:
alpha = lowalpha | upalpha
lowalpha = "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | "g" | "h" | "i" |
"j" | "k" | "l" | "m" | "n" | "o" | "p" | "q" | "r" |
"s" | "t" | "u" | "v" | "w" | "x" | "y" | "z"
upalpha = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" | "G" | "H" | "I" |
"J" | "K" | "L" | "M" | "N" | "O" | "P" | "Q" | "R" |
"S" | "T" | "U" | "V" | "W" | "X" | "Y" | "Z"
digit = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" |
"8" | "9"
alphanum = alpha | digit
The complete URI syntax is collected in Appendix A.
2. URI Characters and Escape Sequences
URIs consist of a restricted set of characters, primarily chosen to
aid transcribability and usability both in computer systems and in
non-computer communications. Characters used conventionally as
delimiters around URIs were excluded. The restricted set of
characters consists of digits, letters, and a few graphic symbols
were chosen from those common to most of the character encodings
and input facilities available to Internet users.
Within a URI, characters are either used as delimiters, or to
represent strings of data (octets) within the delimited portions.
Octets are either represented directly by a character (using the
US-ASCII character for that octet) or by an escape encoding. This
representation is elaborated below.
2.1 URIs and non-ASCII characters
While URIs are sequences of characters and those characters are
used (within delimited sections) to represent sequences of octets,
in some cases those sequences of octets are used (via a 'charset'
or character encoding scheme) to represent sequences of characters:
URI char. sequence <-> octet sequence <-> original char. sequence
In cases where the original character sequence contains characters
that are strictly within the set of characters defined in the
US-ASCII character set, the mapping is simple: each original
character is translated into the US-ASCII code for it, and
subsequently represented either as the same character, or as an
escape sequence.
In general practice, many different character encoding schemes are
used in the second mapping (between sequences of represented
characters and sequences of octets) and there is generally no
representation in the URI itself of which mapping was used unless
the URI scheme requires a specific mapping. While there is a strong
desire to provide for a general and uniform mapping between more
general scripts and URIs, the standard for such use is outside of the
scope of this document.
More systematic treatment of character encoding within URIs is
currently under development.
2.2. Reserved Characters
Many URIs include components consisting of or delimited by, certain
special characters. These characters are called "reserved", since
their usage within the URI component is limited to their reserved
purpose. If the data for a URI component would conflict with the
reserved purpose, then the conflicting data must be escaped before
forming the URI.
reserved = ";" | "/" | "?" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+"
The "reserved" syntax class above refers to those characters which
are allowed within a URI, but which may not be allowed within a
particular component of the generic URI syntax; they are used as
delimiters of the URI components.
Characters in the "reserved" set are not reserved in all contexts.
The set of characters actually reserved within any given URI
component is defined by that component. In general, a character is
reserved if the semantics of the URI changes if the character is
replaced with its escaped US-ASCII encoding.
2.3. Unreserved Characters
Data characters which are allowed in a URI but do not have a reserved
purpose are called unreserved. These include upper and lower case
letters, decimal digits, and a limited set of punctuation marks and
symbols.
unreserved = alphanum | mark
mark = "$" | "-" | "_" | "." | "!" | "~" |
"*" | "'" | "(" | ")" | ","
Unreserved characters can be escaped without changing the semantics
of the URI, but this should not be done unless the URI is being used
in a context which does not allow the unescaped character to appear.
2.4. Escape Sequences
Data must be escaped if it does not have a representation using an
unreserved character; this includes data that does not correspond
to a printable character of the US-ASCII coded character set, or
that corresponds to any US-ASCII character that is disallowed, as
explained below.
2.4.1. Escaped Encoding
An escaped octet is encoded as a character triplet, consisting
of the percent character "%" followed by the two hexadecimal digits
representing the octet code. For example, "%20" is the escaped
encoding for the US-ASCII space character.
escaped = "%" hex hex
hex = digit | "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" |
"a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f"
2.4.2. When to Escape and Unescape
A URI is always in an "escaped" form, since escaping or unescaping
a completed URI might change its semantics. Normally, the only
time escape encodings can safely be made is when the URI is being
created from its component parts; each component may have its own
set of characters which are reserved, so only the mechanism
responsible for generating or interpreting that component can
determine whether or not escaping a character will change its
semantics. Likewise, a URI must be separated into its components
before the escaped characters within those components can be safely
decoded.
In some cases, data that could be represented by an unreserved
character may appear escaped; for example, some of the unreserved
"mark" characters are automatically escaped by some systems. It is
safe to unescape these within the body of a URI. For example,
"%7e" is sometimes used instead of "~" in an http URL path, but the
two can be used interchangeably.
Because the percent "%" character always has the reserved purpose of
being the escape indicator, it must be escaped as "%25" in order to
be used as data within a URI. Implementers should be careful not to
escape or unescape the same string more than once, since unescaping
an already unescaped string might lead to misinterpreting a percent
data character as another escaped character, or vice versa in the
case of escaping an already escaped string.
2.4.3. Excluded US-ASCII Characters
Although they are disallowed within the URI syntax, we include here
a description of those US-ASCII characters which have been excluded
and the reasons for their exclusion.
The control characters in the US-ASCII coded character set are not
used within a URI, both because they are non-printable and because
they are likely to be misinterpreted by some control mechanisms.
control = <US-ASCII coded characters 00-1F and 7F hexadecimal>
The space character is excluded because significant spaces may
disappear and insignificant spaces may be introduced when URIs are
transcribed or typeset or subjected to the treatment of
word-processing programs. Whitespace is also used to delimit URIs
in many contexts.
space = <US-ASCII coded character 20 hexadecimal>
The angle-bracket "<" and ">" and double-quote (") characters are
excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URIs
in text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is
excluded because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment
identifier in URL references. The percent character "%" is excluded
because it is used for the encoding of escaped characters.
delims = "<" | ">" | "#" | "%" | <">
Other characters are excluded because gateways and other transport
agents are known to sometimes modify such characters, or they are
used as delimiters.
unwise = "{" | "}" | "|" | "\" | "^" | "[" | "]" | "`"
Data corresponding to excluded characters must be escaped in order
to be properly represented within a URI.
3. Generic URI Syntax
3.1. Scheme
Just as there are many different methods of access to resources,
there are a variety of schemes for identifying such
resources. The URI syntax consists of a sequence of components
separated by reserved characters, with the first component defining
the semantics for the remainder of the URI string.
In general, absolute URIs are written as follows:
<scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>
An absolute URI contains the name of the scheme being used (<scheme>)
followed by a colon (":") and then a string (the <scheme-specific-
part>) whose interpretation depends on the scheme.
Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters. The lower case
letters "a"--"z", digits, and the characters plus ("+"), period
("."), and hyphen ("-") are allowed. For resiliency, programs
interpreting URIs should treat upper case letters as equivalent to
lower case in scheme names (e.g., allow "HTTP" as well as "http").
scheme = 1*( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )
3.2. Opaque URIs and Hierarchical URLs
The URI syntax does not require that the scheme-specific-part have
any general structure or set of semantics which is common among all
URIs. However, a subset of URLs do share a common syntax for
representing hierarchical relationships within the namespace.
This generic-URL syntax is used in interpreting relative URLs.
absoluteURL = generic-URL | opaque-URL
opaque-URL = scheme ":" *uric
generic-URL = scheme ":" relativeURL
URLs which are hierarchical in nature use the slash "/" character for
separating hierarchical components. For some file systems, a "/"
character (used to denote the hierarchical structure of a URL) is the
delimiter used to construct a file name hierarchy, and thus the URL
path will look similar to a file pathname. This does NOT imply that
the resource is a file or that the URL maps to an actual filesystem
pathname.
4. Security Considerations
A URI does not in itself pose a security threat. Users should beware
that there is no general guarantee that a URL, which at one time
located a given resource, will continue to do so. Nor is there any
guarantee that a URL will not locate a different resource at some
later point in time, due to the lack of any constraint on how a given
site apportions its namespace. Such a guarantee can only be
obtained from the person(s) controlling that namespace and the
resource in question. While URNs are designed to maximize the
ability to provide persistence and stability of resolution of
URIs, mechanics cannot enforce that this will always be the case.
5. Acknowledgements
This document was derived from RFC 1738 [RFC1738] and RFC 1808
[RFC1808]; the acknowledgements in those specifications still
apply. In addition, contributions by Lauren Wood, Martin Duerst,
Gisle Aas, Martijn Koster, Ryan Moats, Foteos Macrides and
Dave Kristol are gratefully acknowledged.
6. References
[RFC1630] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A
Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of
Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web", RFC 1630,
CERN, June 1994.
[RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, Editors,
"Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, CERN, Xerox
Corporation, University of Minnesota, December 1994.
[RFC1866] Berners-Lee T., and D. Connolly, "HyperText Markup Language
Specification -- 2.0", RFC 1866, MIT/W3C, November 1995.
[RFC????] Berners-Lee T., R. Fielding, L. Masinter and L. Daigle,
"Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics"
RFC ????, IETF, December 1997.
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, UDEL, August 1982.
[RFC1808] Fielding, R., "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 1808,
UC Irvine, June 1995.
[RFC1736] Kunze, J., "Functional Recommendations for Internet Resource
Locators", RFC 1736, IS&T, UC Berkeley, February 1995.
[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, AT&T, May 1997.
[RFC2110] Palme, J., Hopmann, A. "MIME E-mail Encapsulation of
Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", RFC 2110, Stockholm
University/KTH, Microsoft Corporation, March 1997.
[RFC1737] Sollins, K., and L. Masinter, "Functional Requirements for
Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, MIT/LCS, Xerox Corporation,
December 1994.
[ASCII] US-ASCII. "Coded Character Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code
for Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1986.
7. Notices
Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1997. All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
8. Authors' Addresses
Tim Berners-Lee
World Wide Web Consortium
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, NE43-356
545 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA 02139
Fax: +1(617)258-8682
EMail: timbl@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697-3425
Fax: +1(714)824-1715
EMail: fielding@ics.uci.edu
Larry Masinter
Xerox PARC
3333 Coyote Hill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94034
Fax: +1(415)812-4333
EMail: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Leslie L. Daigle
Bunyip Information Systems Inc.
310 Ste. Catherine St. W
Suite 300
Montreal, Quebec, CANADA
H2X 2A1
Fax: +1(514)875-8134
Email: leslie@bunyip.com
Appendices
A. Collected BNF for URIs
URI-reference = URL-reference | URN-reference
URL-reference = [ absoluteURL | relativeURL ] [ "#" fragment ]
URN-reference = "urn:" URN-nid ":" URN-nss
absoluteURL = generic-URL | opaque-URL
opaque-URL = scheme ":" *uric
generic-URL = scheme ":" relativeURL
relativeURL = <as defined in RFC???? -- URL Syntax>
URN-nid = <as defined in RFC2141>
URN-nss = <as defined in RFC2141>
scheme = 1*( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )
fragment = *uric
uric = reserved | unreserved | escaped
reserved = ";" | "/" | "?" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+"
unreserved = alpha | digit | mark
mark = "$" | "-" | "_" | "." | "!" | "~" |
"*" | "'" | "(" | ")" | ","
escaped = "%" hex hex
hex = digit | "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" |
"a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f"
alphanum = alpha | digit
alpha = lowalpha | upalpha
lowalpha = "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | "g" | "h" | "i" |
"j" | "k" | "l" | "m" | "n" | "o" | "p" | "q" | "r" |
"s" | "t" | "u" | "v" | "w" | "x" | "y" | "z"
upalpha = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" | "G" | "H" | "I" |
"J" | "K" | "L" | "M" | "N" | "O" | "P" | "Q" | "R" |
"S" | "T" | "U" | "V" | "W" | "X" | "Y" | "Z"
digit = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" |
"8" | "9"
B. Recommendations for Delimiting URIs in Context
URIs are often transmitted through formats which do not provide a
clear context for their interpretation. For example, there are
many occasions when URIs are included in plain text; examples
include text sent in electronic mail, USENET news messages, and,
most importantly, printed on paper. In such cases, it is important
to be able to delimit the URI from the rest of the text, and in
particular from punctuation marks that might be mistaken for part
of the URI.
In practice, URIs are delimited in a variety of ways, but usually
within double-quotes "http://test.com/", angle brackets
<http://test.com/>, or just using whitespace
http://test.com/
These wrappers do not form part of the URI.
In the case where a fragment identifier is associated with a URL
reference, the fragment would be placed within the brackets as well
(separated from the URL with a "#" character).
In some cases, extra whitespace (spaces, linebreaks, tabs, etc.)
may need to be added to break long URIs across lines. The
whitespace should be ignored when extracting the URI.
No whitespace should be introduced after a hyphen ("-") character.
Because some typesetters and printers may (erroneously) introduce a
hyphen at the end of line when breaking a line, the interpreter of a
URI containing a line break immediately after a hyphen should ignore
all unescaped whitespace around the line break, and should be aware
that the hyphen may or may not actually be part of the URI.
Using <> angle brackets around each URI is especially recommended
as a delimiting style for URIs that contain whitespace.
The prefix "URL:" (with or without a trailing space) was
recommended as a way to used to help distinguish a URL from other
bracketed designators, although this is not common in practice.
For robustness, software that accepts user-typed URIs should
attempt to recognize and strip both delimiters and embedded
whitespace.
For example, the text:
Yes, Jim, I found it under "http://www.w3.org/Addressing/",
but you can probably pick it up from <ftp://ds.internic.
net/rfc/>. Note the warning in <http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/
ietf/uri/historical.html#WARNING>.
contains the URI references
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/
ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/historical.html#WARNING
C. Summary of Non-editorial Changes
C.1. Additions
Section 2.4 was rewritten to clarify a number of misinterpretations
and to leave room for fully internationalized URLs.
C.2. Modifications from both RFC 1738 and RFC 1808
Changed to URI syntax and semantics instead of just URL.
Confusion regarding the terms "character encoding", the URL
"character set", and the escaping of characters with %<hex><hex>
equivalents has (hopefully) been reduced. Many of the BNF rule
names regarding the character sets have been changed to more
accurately describe their purpose and to encompass all "characters"
rather than just US-ASCII octets. Unless otherwise noted here,
these modifications do not affect the URI syntax.
Both RFC 1738 and RFC 1808 refer to the "reserved" set of
characters as if URL-interpreting software were limited to a single
set of characters with a reserved purpose (i.e., as meaning
something other than the data to which the characters correspond),
and that this set was fixed by the URL scheme. However, this has
not been true in practice; any character which is interpreted
differently when it is escaped is, in effect, reserved.
Furthermore, the interpreting engine on a HTTP server is often
dependent on the resource, not just the URL scheme. The
description of reserved characters has been changed accordingly.
The plus "+" character was added to those in the "reserved" set,
since it is treated as reserved within some URL components.
The tilde "~" character was added to those in the "unreserved" set,
since it is extensively used on the Internet in spite of the
difficulty to transcribe it with some keyboards.
C.3. Modifications from RFC 1738
The definition of specific URL schemes and their scheme-specific
syntax and semantics has been moved to separate documents.
The recommendations for delimiting URLs in context (Appendix B) have
been adjusted to reflect current practice.
Network Working Group T. Berners-Lee, MIT/LCS
INTERNET-DRAFT R. Fielding, U.C. Irvine
draft-fielding-url-syntax-03 L. Masinter, Xerox Corporation
Expires six months after publication date L. Daigle, Bunyip Information
Systems Inc.
December 16, 1997
Uniform Resource Locators (URL): Generic Syntax and Semantics
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in
progress.''
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net
(Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East
Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
This document defines the general syntax and semantics of URLs,
including both absolute and relative forms, and guidelines for their
use; it revises and replaces the generic definitions in RFC 1738 and
RFC 1808, and is an extension to RFC ???? on URI Syntax.
1. Introduction
Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) provide a simple and extensible
means for identifying a resource. This specification of URL syntax
and semantics is derived from concepts introduced by the World Wide
Web global information initiative, whose use of such objects dates
from 1990 and is described in "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW"
[RFC1630]. The specification of URLs is designed to meet the
recommendations laid out in "Functional Recommendations for Internet
Resource Locators" [RFC1736]. URLs are one type of URI (Uniform
Resource Identifier); the generic syntax of URIs is layed out in
RFC ???? (URI Syntax) and URNs (Uniform Resource Names) are described
elsewhere [RFC2141].
This document updates and merges "Uniform Resource Locators"
[RFC1738] and "Relative Uniform Resource Locators" [RFC1808] in
order to define a single, general syntax for all URLs. It excludes
those portions of RFC 1738 that defined the specific syntax of
individual URL schemes; those portions will be updated as separate
documents, as will the process for registration of new URL schemes.
This document does not discuss the issues and recommendation for
dealing with characters outside of the US-ASCII character set
[ASCII]; those recommendations are discussed in a separate document.
All significant changes from the prior RFCs are noted in Appendix F.
1.2. Overview of URLs
Many URL schemes have been defined. The scheme defines the
space of the URL, and thus may further restrict the syntax and
semantics of identifiers using that scheme.
Although many URL schemes are named after protocols, this does not
imply that the only way to access the URL's resource is via the named
protocol. Gateways, proxies, caches, and name resolution services
might be used to access some resources, independent of the protocol
of their origin, and the resolution of some URLs may require the use
of more than one protocol (e.g., both DNS and HTTP are typically used
to access an "http" URL's resource when it can't be found in a local
cache).
1.3. Example URLs
The following examples illustrate URLs which are in common use.
ftp://ftp.is.co.za/rfc/rfc1808.txt
-- ftp scheme for File Transfer Protocol services
gopher://spinaltap.micro.umn.edu/00/Weather/California/Los%20Angeles
-- gopher scheme for Gopher and Gopher+ Protocol services
http://www.math.uio.no/faq/compression-faq/part1.html
-- http scheme for Hypertext Transfer Protocol services
mailto:mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch
-- mailto scheme for electronic mail addresses
news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
-- news scheme for USENET news groups and articles
telnet://melvyl.ucop.edu/
-- telnet scheme for interactive services via the TELNET Protocol
1.4. Hierarchical URLs and Relative Forms
URL schemes may support a hierarchical naming system, where the
hierarchy of the name is denoted by a "/" delimiter separating the
components in the scheme. There is a `relative' form of URL reference
which is used in conjunction with a `base' URL (of a hierarchical
scheme) to produce another URL. The syntax of hierarchical URLs is
described in Section 3, and the relative URL calculation is described
in Section 4.
1.5. Syntax Notation and Common Elements
This document uses two conventions to describe and define the syntax
for Uniform Resource Locators. The first, called the layout form, is
a general description of the order of components and component
separators, as in
<first>/<second>;<third>?<fourth>
The component names are enclosed in angle-brackets and any characters
outside angle-brackets are literal separators. Whitespace should be
ignored. These descriptions are used informally and do not define
the syntax requirements.
The second convention is a BNF-like grammar, used to define the
formal URL syntax. The grammar is that of [RFC822], except that
"|" is used to designate alternatives. Briefly, rules are separated
from definitions by an equal "=", indentation is used to continue a
rule definition over more than one line, literals are quoted with "",
parentheses "(" and ")" are used to group elements, optional elements
are enclosed in "[" and "]" brackets, and elements may be preceded
with <n>* to designate n or more repetitions of the following
element; n defaults to 0.
Unlike many specifications which use a BNF-like grammar to define the
bytes (octets) allowed by a protocol, the URL grammar is defined in
terms of characters. Each literal in the grammar corresponds to the
character it represents, rather than to the octet encoding of that
character in any particular coded character set. How a URL is
represented in terms of bits and bytes on the wire is dependent upon
the character encoding of the protocol used to transport it, or the
charset of the document which contains it.
The following definitions are common to many elements:
alpha = lowalpha | upalpha
lowalpha = "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | "g" | "h" | "i" |
"j" | "k" | "l" | "m" | "n" | "o" | "p" | "q" | "r" |
"s" | "t" | "u" | "v" | "w" | "x" | "y" | "z"
upalpha = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" | "G" | "H" | "I" |
"J" | "K" | "L" | "M" | "N" | "O" | "P" | "Q" | "R" |
"S" | "T" | "U" | "V" | "W" | "X" | "Y" | "Z"
digit = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" |
"8" | "9"
alphanum = alpha | digit
The complete URL syntax is collected in Appendix A.
A more detailed discussion of URI Characters and Escape Sequences
is available in [RFC ????].
2. URL References
In practice, resource identifiers consist not only of complete URLs,
but other resource references which contain either an absolute
or relative URL form, and may be followed by a fragment identifier.
The terminology around the use of URLs has been confusing.
The term "URL-reference" is used here to denote the common usage of
a resource identifier. A URL reference may be absolute or relative,
and may have additional information attached in the form of a
fragment identifier. However, "the URL" which results from such a
reference includes only the absolute URL after the fragment
identifier (if any) is removed and after any relative URL is
resolved to its absolute form. Although it is possible to limit
the discussion of URL syntax and semantics to that of the absolute
result, most usage of URLs is within general URL references, and it
is impossible to obtain the URL from such a reference without also
parsing the fragment and resolving the relative form.
URL-reference = [ absoluteURL | relativeURL ] [ "#" fragment ]
The syntax for relative URLs is a shortened form of that for absolute
URLs, where some prefix of the URL is missing and certain path
components ("." and "..") have a special meaning when interpreting a
relative path.
When a URL reference is used to perform a retrieval action on the
identified resource, the optional fragment identifier, separated from
the URL by a crosshatch ("#") character, consists of additional
reference information to be interpreted by the user agent after the
retrieval action has been successfully completed. As such, it is not
part of a URL, but is often used in conjunction with a URL. The
format and interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the
media type of the retrieval result.
fragment = *uric
A URL reference which does not contain a URL is a reference to the
current document. In other words, an empty URL reference within a
document is interpreted as a reference to the start of that document,
and a reference containing only a fragment identifier is a reference
to the identified fragment of that document. Traversal of such a
reference should not result in an additional retrieval action.
However, if the URL reference occurs in a context that is always
intended to result in a new request, as in the case of HTML's FORM
element, then an empty URL reference represents the base URL of the
current document and should be replaced by that URL when transformed
into a request.
3. Generic URL Syntax
3.1. Scheme
Just as there are many different methods of access to resources,
there are a variety of schemes for identifying such
resources. The URL syntax consists of a sequence of components
separated by reserved characters, with the first component defining
the semantics for the remainder of the URL string.
In general, absolute URLs are written as follows:
<scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>
An absolute URL contains the name of the scheme being used (<scheme>)
followed by a colon (":") and then a string (the <scheme-specific-
part>) whose interpretation depends on the scheme.
Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters. The lower case
letters "a"--"z", digits, and the characters plus ("+"), period
("."), and hyphen ("-") are allowed. For resiliency, programs
interpreting URLs should treat upper case letters as equivalent to
lower case in scheme names (e.g., allow "HTTP" as well as "http").
scheme = 1*( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )
Relative URL references are distinguished from absolute URLs in that
they do not begin with a scheme name. Instead, the scheme is
inherited from the base URL, as described in Section 4.2.
3.2. Opaque and Hierarchical URLs
The URL syntax does not require that the scheme-specific-part have
any general structure or set of semantics which is common among all
URLs. However, a subset of URLs do share a common syntax for
representing hierarchical relationships within the namespace.
This generic-URL syntax is used in interpreting relative URLs.
absoluteURL = generic-URL | opaque-URL
opaque-URL = scheme ":" *uric
generic-URL = scheme ":" relativeURL
The separation of the URL grammar into <generic-URL> and <opaque-URL>
is redundant, since both rules will successfully parse any string of
<uric> characters. The distinction is simply to clarify that a
parser of relative URL references (Section 4) will view a URL as a
generic-URL, whereas a handler of absolute references need only view
it as an opaque-URL.
URLs which are hierarchical in nature use the slash "/" character for
separating hierarchical components. For some file systems, a "/"
character (used to denote the hierarchical structure of a URL) is the
delimiter used to construct a file name hierarchy, and thus the URL
path will look similar to a file pathname. This does NOT imply that
the resource is a file or that the URL maps to an actual filesystem
pathname.
3.3. URL Syntactic Components
The URL syntax is dependent upon the scheme. Some schemes use
reserved characters like "?" and ";" to indicate special components,
while others just consider them to be part of the path. However,
most URL schemes use a common sequence of four main components:
<scheme>://<site><path>?<query>
each of which, except <scheme>, may be absent from a particular URL.
For example, some URL schemes do not allow a <site> component, and
others do not use a <query> component.
3.3.1. Site Component
Many URL schemes include a top hierarchical element for a naming
authority, such that the namespace defined by the remainder of the
URL is governed by that authority. This <site> component is
typically defined by an Internet-based server or a scheme-specific
registry of naming authorities.
site = server | authority
The <site> component is preceded by a double slash "//" and is
terminated by the next slash "/", question-mark "?", or by the end of
the URL. Within the <site> component, the characters ":", "@", "?",
and "/" are reserved.
The structure of a registry-based naming authority is specific to the
URL scheme, but constrained to the allowed characters for <site>.
authority = *( unreserved | escaped |
";" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+" )
URL schemes that involve the direct use of an IP-based protocol to a
specified server on the Internet use a common syntax for the <site>
component of the URL's scheme-specific data:
<userinfo>@<host>:<port>
where <userinfo> may consist of a user name and, optionally,
scheme-specific information about how to gain authorization to access
the server. The parts "<userinfo>@" and ":<port>" may be omitted.
server = [ [ userinfo ] "@" ] hostport ]
The user information, if present, is followed by a commercial
at-sign "@".
userinfo = *( unreserved | escaped | ":" | ";" |
"&" | "=" | "+" )
Some URL schemes use the format "user:password" in the <userinfo>
field. This practice is NOT RECOMMENDED, because the passing of
authentication information in clear text (such as URLs) has proven to
be a security risk in almost every case where it has been used.
The host is a domain name of a network host, or its IPv4 address as
a set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".". Literal IPv6
addresses are not supported.
hostport = host [ ":" port ]
host = hostname | IPv4address
hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ]
domainlabel = alphanum | alphanum *( alphanum | "-" ) alphanum
toplabel = alpha | alpha *( alphanum | "-" ) alphanum
IPv4address = 1*digit "." 1*digit "." 1*digit "." 1*digit
port = *digit
Hostnames take the form described in Section 3 of [RFC1034] and
Section 2.1 of [RFC1123]: a sequence of domain labels separated by
".", each domain label starting and ending with an alphanumeric
character and possibly also containing "-" characters. The rightmost
domain label of a fully qualified domain name will never start with a
digit, thus syntactically distinguishing domain names from IPv4
addresses, and may be followed by a single "." if it is necessary to
distinguish between the complete domain name and any local domain.
To actually be "Uniform" as a resource locator, a URL hostname should
be a fully qualified domain name. In practice, however, the host
component may be a local domain literal.
Note: A suitable representation for including a literal IPv6
address as the host part of a URL is desired, but has not yet
been determined or implemented in practice.
The port is the network port number for the server. Most schemes
designate protocols that have a default port number. Another port
number may optionally be supplied, in decimal, separated from the
host by a colon. If the port is omitted, the default port number is
assumed.
A site component is not required for a URL scheme to make use of
relative references. A base URL without a site component implies
that any relative reference will also be without a site component.
3.3.2. Path Component
The path component contains data, specific to the site (or the scheme
if there is no site component), identifying the resource within the
scope of that scheme and site.
path = [ "/" ] path_segments
path_segments = segment *( "/" segment )
segment = *pchar *( ";" param )
param = *pchar
pchar = unreserved | escaped | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+"
The path may consist of a sequence of path segments separated by a
single slash "/" character. Within a path segment, the characters
"/", ";", "=", and "?" are reserved. Each path segment may include a
sequence of parameters, indicated by the semicolon ";" character.
The parameters are not significant to the parsing of relative
references.
3.3.3. Query Component
The query component is a string of information to be interpreted by
the resource.
query = *uric
Within a query component, the characters "/", "&", "=", and "+" are
reserved.
3.4. Parsing a URL Reference
A URL reference is typically parsed according to the five main
components in order to determine what components are present and
whether or not the reference is relative or absolute. The individual
components are then parsed for their subparts and to verify their
validity. A reference is parsed as if it is a generic-URL, even
though it might be considered opaque by later processes.
Although the BNF defines what is allowed in each component, it is
ambiguous in terms of differentiating between a site component and
a path component that begins with two slash characters. The greedy
algorithm is used for disambiguation: the left-most matching rule
soaks up as much of the URL reference string as it is capable of
matching. In other words, the site component wins.
Readers familiar with regular expressions should see Appendix B for a
concrete parsing example and test oracle.
4. Relative URL References
It is often the case that a group or "tree" of documents has been
constructed to serve a common purpose; the vast majority of URLs in
these documents point to locations within the tree rather than
outside of it. Similarly, documents located at a particular site
are much more likely to refer to other resources at that site than
to resources at remote sites.
Relative addressing of URLs allows document trees to be partially
independent of their location and access scheme. For instance, it is
possible for a single set of hypertext documents to be simultaneously
accessible and traversable via each of the "file", "http", and "ftp"
schemes if the documents refer to each other using relative URLs.
Furthermore, such document trees can be moved, as a whole, without
changing any of the relative references. Experience within the WWW
has demonstrated that the ability to perform relative referencing
is necessary for the long-term usability of embedded URLs.
relativeURL = net_path | abs_path | rel_path
A relative reference beginning with two slash characters is termed a
network-path reference. Such references are rarely used.
net_path = "//" site [ abs_path ]
A relative reference beginning with a single slash character is
termed an absolute-path reference.
abs_path = "/" rel_path
A relative reference which does not begin with a scheme name or a
slash character is termed a relative-path reference.
rel_path = [ path_segments ] [ "?" query ]
Within a relative-path reference, the complete path segments "." and
".." have special meanings: "the current hierarchy level" and "the
level above this hierarchy level", respectively. Although this is
very similar to their use within Unix-based filesystems to indicate
directory levels, these path components are only considered special
when resolving a relative-path reference to its absolute form
(Section 4.2).
Authors should be aware that a path segment which contains a colon
character cannot be used as the first segment of a relative URL path
(e.g., "this:that"), because it would be mistaken for a scheme name.
It is therefore necessary to precede such segments with other
segments (e.g., "./this:that") in order for them to be referenced as
a relative path.
It is not necessary for all URLs within a given scheme to be
restricted to the generic-URL syntax, since the hierarchical
properties of that syntax are only necessary when relative URLs are
used within a particular document. Documents can only make use of
relative URLs when their base URL fits within the generic-URL syntax.
It is assumed that any document which contains a relative reference
will also have a base URL that obeys the syntax. In other words,
relative URLs cannot be used within a document that has an unsuitable
base URL.
4.1. Establishing a Base URL
The term "relative URL" implies that there exists some absolute "base
URL" against which the relative reference is applied. Indeed, the
base URL is necessary to define the semantics of any relative URL
reference; without it, a relative reference is meaningless. In order
for relative URLs to be usable within a document, the base URL of
that document must be known to the parser.
The base URL of a document can be established in one of four ways,
listed below in order of precedence. The order of precedence can be
thought of in terms of layers, where the innermost defined base URL
has the highest precedence. This can be visualized graphically as:
.----------------------------------------------------------.
| .----------------------------------------------------. |
| | .----------------------------------------------. | |
| | | .----------------------------------------. | | |
| | | | .----------------------------------. | | | |
| | | | | <relative_reference> | | | | |
| | | | `----------------------------------' | | | |
| | | | (5.1.1) Base URL embedded in the | | | |
| | | | document's content | | | |
| | | `----------------------------------------' | | |
| | | (5.1.2) Base URL of the encapsulating entity | | |
| | | (message, document, or none). | | |
| | `----------------------------------------------' | |
| | (5.1.3) URL used to retrieve the entity | |
| `----------------------------------------------------' |
| (5.1.4) Default Base URL is application-dependent |
`----------------------------------------------------------'
4.1.1. Base URL within Document Content
Within certain document media types, the base URL of the document can
be embedded within the content itself such that it can be readily
obtained by a parser. This can be useful for descriptive documents,
such as tables of content, which may be transmitted to others through
protocols other than their usual retrieval context (e.g., E-Mail or
USENET news).
It is beyond the scope of this document to specify how, for each
media type, the base URL can be embedded. It is assumed that user
agents manipulating such media types will be able to obtain the
appropriate syntax from that media type's specification. An example
of how the base URL can be embedded in the Hypertext Markup Language
(HTML) [RFC1866] is provided in Appendix D.
A mechanism for embedding the base URL within MIME container types
(e.g., the message and multipart types) is defined by MHTML
[RFC2110]. Protocols that do not use the MIME message header syntax,
but which do allow some form of tagged metainformation to be included
within messages, may define their own syntax for defining the base
URL as part of a message.
4.1.2. Base URL from the Encapsulating Entity
If no base URL is embedded, the base URL of a document is defined by
the document's retrieval context. For a document that is enclosed
within another entity (such as a message or another document), the
retrieval context is that entity; thus, the default base URL of the
document is the base URL of the entity in which the document is
encapsulated.
4.1.3. Base URL from the Retrieval URL
If no base URL is embedded and the document is not encapsulated
within some other entity (e.g., the top level of a composite entity),
then, if a URL was used to retrieve the base document, that URL shall
be considered the base URL. Note that if the retrieval was the
result of a redirected request, the last URL used (i.e., that which
resulted in the actual retrieval of the document) is the base URL.
4.1.4. Default Base URL
If none of the conditions described in Sections 4.1.1--4.1.3 apply,
then the base URL is defined by the context of the application.
Since this definition is necessarily application-dependent, failing
to define the base URL using one of the other methods may result in
the same content being interpreted differently by different types of
application.
It is the responsibility of the distributor(s) of a document
containing relative URLs to ensure that the base URL for that
document can be established. It must be emphasized that relative
URLs cannot be used reliably in situations where the document's
base URL is not well-defined.
4.2. Resolving Relative References to Absolute Form
This section describes an example algorithm for resolving URL
references which might be relative to a given base URL.
The base URL is established according to the rules of Section 4.1 and
parsed into the four main components as described in Section 3.3.
Note that only the scheme component is required to be present in the
base URL; the other components may be empty or undefined. A
component is undefined if its preceding separator does not appear in
the URL reference; the path component is never undefined, though it
may be empty. The base URL's query component is not used by the
resolution algorithm and may be discarded.
For each URL reference, the following steps are performed in order:
1) The URL reference is parsed into the potential four components and
fragment identifier, as described in Section 3.3.
2) If the path component is empty and the scheme, site, and query
components are undefined, then it is a reference to the current
document and we are done. Otherwise, the reference URL's query
and fragment components are defined as found (or not found) within
the URL reference and not inherited from the base URL.
3) If the scheme component is defined, indicating that the reference
starts with a scheme name, then the reference is interpreted as an
absolute URL and we are done. Otherwise, the reference URL's
scheme is inherited from the base URL's scheme component.
4) If the site component is defined, then the reference is a
network-path and we skip to step 7. Otherwise, the reference
URL's site is inherited from the base URL's site component,
which will also be undefined if the URL scheme does not use a
site component.
5) If the path component begins with a slash character ("/"), then
the reference is an absolute-path and we skip to step 7.
6) If this step is reached, then we are resolving a relative-path
reference. The relative path needs to be merged with the base
URL's path. Although there are many ways to do this, we will
describe a simple method using a separate string buffer.
a) All but the last segment of the base URL's path component is
copied to the buffer. In other words, any characters after the
last (right-most) slash character, if any, are excluded.
b) The reference's path component is appended to the buffer
string.
c) All occurrences of "./", where "." is a complete path segment,
are removed from the buffer string.
d) If the buffer string ends with "." as a complete path segment,
that "." is removed.
e) All occurrences of "<segment>/../", where <segment> is a
complete path segment not equal to "..", are removed from the
buffer string. Removal of these path segments is performed
iteratively, removing the leftmost matching pattern on each
iteration, until no matching pattern remains.
f) If the buffer string ends with "<segment>/..", where <segment>
is a complete path segment not equal to "..", that
"<segment>/.." is removed.
g) If the resulting buffer string still begins with one or more
complete path segments of "..", then the reference is
considered to be in error. Implementations may handle this
error by retaining these components in the resolved path
(i.e., treating them as part of the final URL), by removing
them from the resolved path (i.e., discarding relative levels
above the root), or by avoiding traversal of the reference.
h) The remaining buffer string is the reference URL's new path
component.
7) The resulting URL components, including any inherited from the
base URL, are recombined to give the absolute form of the URL
reference. Using pseudocode, this would be
result = ""
if scheme is defined then
append scheme to result
append ":" to result
if site is defined then
append "//" to result
append site to result
append path to result
if query is defined then
append "?" to result
append query to result
if fragment is defined then
append "#" to result
append fragment to result
return result
Note that we must be careful to preserve the distinction between a
component that is undefined, meaning that its separator was not
present in the reference, and a component that is empty, meaning
that the separator was present and was immediately followed by the
next component separator or the end of the reference.
The above algorithm is intended to provide an example by which the
output of implementations can be tested -- implementation of the
algorithm itself is not required. For example, some systems may find
it more efficient to implement step 6 as a pair of segment stacks
being merged, rather than as a series of string pattern replacements.
Note: Some WWW client applications will fail to separate the
reference's query component from its path component before merging
the base and reference paths in step 6 above. This may result in
a loss of information if the query component contains the strings
"/../" or "/./".
Resolution examples are provided in Appendix C.
5. URL Normalization and Equivalence
In many cases, different URL strings may actually identify the
identical resource. For example, the host names used in URLs are
actually case insensitive, and the URL <http://www.XEROX.com> is
equivalent to <http://www.xerox.com>. In general, the rules for
equivalence and definition of a normal form, if any, are scheme
dependent. When a scheme uses elements of the common syntax, it
will also use the common syntax equivalence rules, namely that host
name is case independent, and a URL with an explicit ":port", where
the port is the default for the scheme, is equivalent to one
where the port is elided.
6. Security Considerations
A URL does not in itself pose a security threat. Users should beware
that there is no general guarantee that a URL, which at one time
located a given resource, will continue to do so. Nor is there any
guarantee that a URL will not locate a different resource at some
later point in time, due to the lack of any constraint on how a given
site apportions its namespace. Such a guarantee can only be
obtained from the person(s) controlling that namespace and the
resource in question. A specific URL scheme may include additional
semantics, such as name persistence, if those semantics are required
of all naming authorities for that scheme.
It is sometimes possible to construct a URL such that an attempt to
perform a seemingly harmless, idempotent operation, such as the
retrieval of an entity associated with the resource, will in fact
cause a possibly damaging remote operation to occur. The unsafe URL
is typically constructed by specifying a port number other than that
reserved for the network protocol in question. The client
unwittingly contacts a site which is in fact running a different
protocol. The content of the URL contains instructions which, when
interpreted according to this other protocol, cause an unexpected
operation. An example has been the use of gopher URLs to cause an
unintended or impersonating message to be sent via a SMTP server.
Caution should be used when using any URL which specifies a port
number other than the default for the protocol, especially when it
is a number within the reserved space.
Care should be taken when URLs contain escaped delimiters for a
given protocol (for example, CR and LF characters for telnet
protocols) that these are not unescaped before transmission. This
might violate the protocol, but avoids the potential for such
characters to be used to simulate an extra operation or parameter
in that protocol, which might lead to an unexpected and possibly
harmful remote operation to be performed.
It is clearly unwise to use a URL that contains a password which is
intended to be secret. In particular, the use of a password within
the "site" component of a URL is strongly disrecommended except
in those rare cases where the 'password' parameter is intended
to be public.
7. Acknowledgements
This document was derived from RFC 1738 [RFC1738] and RFC 1808
[RFC1808]; the acknowledgements in those specifications still
apply. In addition, contributions by Lauren Wood, Martin Duerst,
Gisle Aas, Martijn Koster, Ryan Moats, Foteos Macrides and
Dave Kristol are gratefully acknowledged.
8. References
[RFC1630] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A
Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of
Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web", RFC 1630,
CERN, June 1994.
[RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, Editors,
"Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, CERN, Xerox
Corporation, University of Minnesota, December 1994.
[RFC1866] Berners-Lee T., and D. Connolly, "HyperText Markup Language
Specification -- 2.0", RFC 1866, MIT/W3C, November 1995.
[RFC????] Berners-Lee T., R. Fielding, L. Masinter and L. Daigle,
"Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics",
RFC ????, IETF, December 1997.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, IETF, October 1989.
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, UDEL, August 1982.
[RFC1808] Fielding, R., "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 1808,
UC Irvine, June 1995.
[RFC1736] Kunze, J., "Functional Recommendations for Internet Resource
Locators", RFC 1736, IS&T, UC Berkeley, February 1995.
[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, AT&T, May 1997.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November
1987.
[RFC2110] Palme, J., Hopmann, A. "MIME E-mail Encapsulation of
Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", RFC 2110, Stockholm
University/KTH, Microsoft Corporation, March 1997.
[ASCII] US-ASCII. "Coded Character Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code
for Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1986.
9. Notices
Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1997. All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
10. Authors' Addresses
Tim Berners-Lee
World Wide Web Consortium
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, NE43-356
545 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA 02139
Fax: +1(617)258-8682
EMail: timbl@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697-3425
Fax: +1(714)824-1715
EMail: fielding@ics.uci.edu
Larry Masinter
Xerox PARC
3333 Coyote Hill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94034
Fax: +1(415)812-4333
EMail: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Leslie L. Daigle
Bunyip Information Systems Inc.
310 Ste. Catherine St. W
Suite 300
Montreal, Quebec, CANADA
H2X 2A1
Fax: +1(514)875-8134
Email: leslie@bunyip.com
Appendices
A. Collected BNF for URLs
URL-reference = [ absoluteURL | relativeURL ] [ "#" fragment ]
absoluteURL = generic-URL | opaque-URL
opaque-URL = scheme ":" *uric
generic-URL = scheme ":" relativeURL
relativeURL = net_path | abs_path | rel_path
net_path = "//" site [ abs_path ]
abs_path = "/" rel_path
rel_path = [ path_segments ] [ "?" query ]
scheme = 1*( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )
site = server | authority
authority = *( unreserved | escaped |
";" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+" )
server = [ [ userinfo ] "@" ] hostport ]
userinfo = *( unreserved | escaped | ":" | ";" | "&" |
"=" | "+" )
hostport = host [ ":" port ]
host = hostname | IPv4address
hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ]
domainlabel = alphanum | alphanum *( alphanum | "-" ) alphanum
toplabel = alpha | alpha *( alphanum | "-" ) alphanum
IPv4address = 1*digit "." 1*digit "." 1*digit "." 1*digit
port = *digit
path = [ "/" ] path_segments
path_segments = segment *( "/" segment )
segment = *pchar *( ";" param )
param = *pchar
pchar = unreserved | escaped | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+"
query = *uric
fragment = *uric
uric = reserved | unreserved | escaped
reserved = ";" | "/" | "?" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+"
unreserved = alpha | digit | mark
mark = "$" | "-" | "_" | "." | "!" | "~" |
"*" | "'" | "(" | ")" | ","
escaped = "%" hex hex
hex = digit | "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" |
"a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f"
alphanum = alpha | digit
alpha = lowalpha | upalpha
lowalpha = "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | "g" | "h" | "i" |
"j" | "k" | "l" | "m" | "n" | "o" | "p" | "q" | "r" |
"s" | "t" | "u" | "v" | "w" | "x" | "y" | "z"
upalpha = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" | "G" | "H" | "I" |
"J" | "K" | "L" | "M" | "N" | "O" | "P" | "Q" | "R" |
"S" | "T" | "U" | "V" | "W" | "X" | "Y" | "Z"
digit = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" |
"8" | "9"
B. Parsing a URL Reference with a Regular Expression
As described in Section 3.3, the generic-URL syntax is not sufficient
to disambiguate the components of some forms of URL. Since the
"greedy algorithm" described in that section is identical to the
disambiguation method used by POSIX regular expressions, it is
natural and commonplace to use a regular expression for parsing the
potential four components and fragment identifier of a URL reference.
The following line is the regular expression for breaking-down a URL
reference into its components.
^(([^:/?#]+):)?(//([^/?#]*))?([^?#]*)(\?([^#]*))?(#(.*))?
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The numbers in the second line above are only to assist readability;
they indicate the reference points for each subexpression (i.e., each
paired parenthesis). We refer to the value matched for subexpression
<n> as $<n>. For example, matching the above expression to
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/#Related
results in the following subexpression matches:
$1 = http:
$2 = http
$3 = //www.ics.uci.edu
$4 = www.ics.uci.edu
$5 = /pub/ietf/uri/
$6 = <undefined>
$7 = <undefined>
$8 = #Related
$9 = Related
where <undefined> indicates that the component is not present, as is
the case for the query component in the above example. Therefore, we
can determine the value of the four components and fragment as
scheme = $2
site = $4
path = $5
query = $7
fragment = $9
and, going in the opposite direction, we can recreate a URL reference
from its components using the algorithm in step 7 of Section 4.2.
C. Examples of Resolving Relative URL References
Within an object with a well-defined base URL of
http://a/b/c/d;p?q
the relative URLs would be resolved as follows:
C.1. Normal Examples
g:h = g:h
g = http://a/b/c/g
./g = http://a/b/c/g
g/ = http://a/b/c/g/
/g = http://a/g
//g = http://g
?y = http://a/b/c/?y
g?y = http://a/b/c/g?y
#s = (current document)#s
g#s = http://a/b/c/g#s
g?y#s = http://a/b/c/g?y#s
;x = http://a/b/c/;x
g;x = http://a/b/c/g;x
g;x?y#s = http://a/b/c/g;x?y#s
. = http://a/b/c/
./ = http://a/b/c/
.. = http://a/b/
../ = http://a/b/
../g = http://a/b/g
../.. = http://a/
../../ = http://a/
../../g = http://a/g
C.2. Abnormal Examples
Although the following abnormal examples are unlikely to occur in
normal practice, all URL parsers should be capable of resolving them
consistently. Each example uses the same base as above.
An empty reference refers to the start of the current document.
<> = (current document)
Parsers must be careful in handling the case where there are more
relative path ".." segments than there are hierarchical levels in
the base URL's path. Note that the ".." syntax cannot be used to
change the site component of a URL.
../../../g = http://a/../g
../../../../g = http://a/../../g
In practice, some implementations strip leading relative symbolic
elements (".", "..") after applying a relative URL calculation, based
on the theory that compensating for obvious author errors is better
than allowing the request to fail. Thus, the above two references
will be interpreted as "http://a/g" by some implementations.
Similarly, parsers must avoid treating "." and ".." as special when
they are not complete components of a relative path.
/./g = http://a/./g
/../g = http://a/../g
g. = http://a/b/c/g.
.g = http://a/b/c/.g
g.. = http://a/b/c/g..
..g = http://a/b/c/..g
Less likely are cases where the relative URL uses unnecessary or
nonsensical forms of the "." and ".." complete path segments.
./../g = http://a/b/g
./g/. = http://a/b/c/g/
g/./h = http://a/b/c/g/h
g/../h = http://a/b/c/h
g;x=1/./y = http://a/b/c/g;x=1/y
g;x=1/../y = http://a/b/c/y
All client applications remove the query component from the base URL
before resolving relative URLs. However, some applications fail to
separate the reference's query and/or fragment components from a
relative path before merging it with the base path. This error is
rarely noticed, since typical usage of a fragment never includes the
hierarchy ("/") character, and the query component is not normally
used within relative references.
g?y/./x = http://a/b/c/g?y/x
g?y/../x = http://a/b/c/x
g#s/./x = http://a/b/c/g#s/./x
g#s/../x = http://a/b/c/g#s/../x
Some parsers allow the scheme name to be present in a relative URL
if it is the same as the base URL scheme. This is considered to be
a loophole in prior specifications of partial URLs [RFC1630]. Its
use should be avoided.
http:g = http:g
http: = http:
D. Embedding the Base URL in HTML documents
It is useful to consider an example of how the base URL of a
document can be embedded within the document's content. In this
appendix, we describe how documents written in the Hypertext Markup
Language (HTML) [RFC1866] can include an embedded base URL. This
appendix does not form a part of the URL specification and should not
be considered as anything more than a descriptive example.
HTML defines a special element "BASE" which, when present in the
"HEAD" portion of a document, signals that the parser should use
the BASE element's "HREF" attribute as the base URL for resolving
any relative URLs. The "HREF" attribute must be an absolute URL.
Note that, in HTML, element and attribute names are
case-insensitive. For example:
<!doctype html public "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<TITLE>An example HTML document</TITLE>
<BASE href="http://www.ics.uci.edu/Test/a/b/c">
</HEAD><BODY>
... <A href="../x">a hypertext anchor</A> ...
</BODY></HTML>
A parser reading the example document should interpret the given
relative URL "../x" as representing the absolute URL
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/Test/a/x>
regardless of the context in which the example document was
obtained.
E. Abbreviated URLs
The URL syntax was designed for unambiguous reference to network
resources and extensibility via the URL scheme. However, as URL
identification and usage have become commonplace, traditional media
(television, radio, newspapers, billboards, etc.) have increasingly
used abbreviated URL references. That is, a reference consisting of
only the site and path portions of the identified resource, such as
www.w3.org/Addressing/
or simply the DNS hostname on its own. Such references are primarily
intended for human interpretation rather than machine, with the
assumption that context-based heuristics are sufficient to complete
the URL (e.g., most hostnames beginning with "www" are likely to have
a URL prefix of "http://"). Although there is no standard set of
heuristics for disambiguating abbreviated URL references, many
client implementations allow them to be entered by the user and
heuristically resolved. It should be noted that such heuristics may
change over time, particularly when new URL schemes are introduced.
Since an abbreviated URL has the same syntax as a relative URL path,
abbreviated URL references cannot be used in contexts where relative
URLs are expected. This limits the use of abbreviated URLs to places
where there is no defined base URL, such as dialog boxes and off-line
advertisements.
F. Summary of Non-editorial Changes
F.1. Additions
Section 2 (URL References) was added to stem the confusion
regarding "what is a URL" and how to describe fragment identifiers
given that they are not part of the URL, but are part of the URL
syntax and parsing concerns. In addition, it provides a reference
definition for use by other IETF specifications (HTML, HTTP, etc.)
which have previously attempted to redefine the URL syntax in order
to account for the presence of fragment identifiers in URL
references.
Appendix E on abbreviated URLs was added to describe the shortened
references often seen on television and magazine advertisements and
explain why they are not used in other contexts.
F.2. Modifications from both RFC 1738 and RFC 1808
The "user:password" form in the previous BNF was changed to
a "userinfo" token, and the possibility that it might be
"user:password" made scheme specific. In particular, the use
of passwords in the clear is not even suggested by the syntax.
The question-mark "?" character was removed from the set of allowed
characters for the userinfo in the site component, since
testing showed that many applications treat it as reserved for
separating the query component from the rest of the URL.
RFC 1738 specified that the path was separated from the site
portion of a URL by a slash. RFC 1808 followed suit, but with a
fudge of carrying around the separator as a "prefix" in order to
describe the parsing algorithm. RFC 1630 never had this problem,
since it considered the slash to be part of the path. In writing
this specification, it was found to be impossible to accurately
describe and retain the difference between the two URLs
<foo:/bar> and <foo:bar>
without either considering the slash to be part of the path (as
corresponds to actual practice) or creating a separate component just
to hold that slash. We chose the former.
F.3. Modifications from RFC 1738
The definition of specific URL schemes and their scheme-specific
syntax and semantics has been moved to separate documents.
The URL host was defined as a fully-qualified domain name. However,
many URLs are used without fully-qualified domain names (in contexts
for which the full qualification is not necessary), without any host
(as in some file URLs), or with a host of "localhost".
The URL port is now *digit instead of 1*digit, since systems are
expected to handle the case where the ":" separator between host and
port is supplied without a port.
F.4. Modifications from RFC 1808
RFC 1808 (Section 4) defined an empty URL reference (a reference
containing nothing aside from the fragment identifier) as being a
reference to the base URL. Unfortunately, that definition could be
interpreted, upon selection of such a reference, as a new retrieval
action on that resource. Since the normal intent of such references
is for the user agent to change its view of the current document to
the beginning of the specified fragment within that document, not to
make an additional request of the resource, a description of how to
correctly interpret an empty reference has been added in Section 2.
The description of the mythical Base header field has been replaced
with a reference to the Content-Base and Content-Location header
fields defined by MHTML [RFC2110].
RFC 1808 described various schemes as either having or not having the
properties of the generic-URL syntax. However, the only requirement
is that the particular document containing the relative references
have a base URL which abides by the generic-URL syntax, regardless of
the URL scheme, so the associated description has been updated to
reflect that.
The BNF term <net_loc> has been replaced with <site>, since the
latter more accurately describes its use and purpose. Likewise, the
site is no longer restricted to the IP server syntax.
Extensive testing of current client applications demonstrated that
the majority of deployed systems do not use the ";" character to
indicate trailing parameter information, and that the presence of a
semicolon in a path segment does not affect the relative parsing of
that segment. Therefore, parameters have been removed as a separate
component and may now appear in any path segment. Their influence
has been removed from the algorithm for resolving a relative URL
reference. The resolution examples in Appendix C have been modified
to reflect this change.
Received on Wednesday, 24 December 1997 14:52:12 UTC