Re: grammar fix for path

At 16:52 01/04/04 -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>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.

Currently, my tests show that as a valid relative URI, but I haven't yet 
updated to the very latest proposed syntax.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 15:58:46 UTC