- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 18:16:04 +0900
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
At 10:33 02/10/11 +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote: >Section 3.3 says: > >The parameters are not significant to the parsing of relative references. > >That would explain the production. However, when a relative uri ref is >resolved >to a uri, you'd get your parameter again. I think the production in the syntax >should be changed. This seems to make sense. Thanks a lot. >While looking at it, I see that segment and rel_segment have different >sets of allowed characters. Noticeably, ':' is allowed in a (absolute) >path segment and forbidden in the rel_segment. > >Isn't that calling for trouble? I'd imagine that there is plenty of code >around >which converts absolute uris to uri references without looking if the >starting rel_segment will be free of ':' chars. Well, yes, but if there is a ':', then the part before it is interpreted as a scheme, and it's an absolute URI. Regards, Martin. >Should'nt the ':' in path segments be discouraged? > >//Stefan > >Am Freitag, 11.10.02, um 08:29 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Martin Duerst: > >> >>Dear URI experts, >> >>Looking through the URI syntax in detail, I became aware >>of the following 'anomaly': parameters are not allowed >>in the first segment of a relative URI (if it doesn't start >>with a slash). The relevant rules are: >> >> relativeURI = ( net_path | abs_path | rel_path ) [ "?" query ] >> >> net_path = "//" authority [ abs_path ] >> abs_path = "/" path_segments >> rel_path = rel_segment [ abs_path ] >> >> rel_segment = 1*( unreserved | escaped | >> ";" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+" | "$" | "," ) >> >> path_segments = segment *( "/" segment ) >> segment = *pchar *( ";" param ) >> param = *pchar >> pchar = unreserved | escaped | >> ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+" | "$" | "," >> >>So in "abc;def/ghi;jkl", 'jkl' is a parameter, but 'def' isn't. >>On the other hand, in "/abc;def/ghi;jkl", both 'def' and 'jkl' >>are parameters. >> >>Is this an error in the syntax, or can somebody explain this? >> >> >>Regards, Martin. >> >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 08:25:40 UTC