Re: grammar fix for path

On Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 10:38  PM, Mike Brown wrote:
> All but one of my test cases for a regex-based parser are passing with 
> the new
> grammar, using trailing '?'s instead of the weird path-empty 
> expression.
>
> The URI reference '::' (without the quotes): permitted or not?
>
> It was permitted in the previous drafts, but maybe that was an 
> oversight?

It was not permitted by RFC 2396.  I don't think it would be 
consistently
interpreted in practice, so I prefer making it invalid.

....Roy

Received on Thursday, 1 April 2004 20:26:37 UTC