Re: RFC2396bis, qualified, a nit

> I think the syntax production 'qualified' is ambiguous (i.e. permits 
> more than one parse tree for some valid values).

Yep.  Theoretically speaking it matches the way BIND works, but I agree
that it is better for parsers as

>    qualified     = *( "." domainlabel ) [ "." toplabel "." ]

Added to the list as 038-qualified.  Thanks.

> Looking at this raises another test case for consideration
>
>   http://example.123./aaa/bbb#ccc
>
> is this a relative URI or an invalid URI?  I think the syntax says 
> it's relative.

How could that be?  It begins with a scheme name, and therefore can't
be relative.  It is invalid.

....Roy

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 04:16:31 UTC