W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2004

Re: grammar fix for path

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:12:12 -0700
Cc: uri@w3.org
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Message-Id: <B0BDF059-8806-11D8-9CC7-000393753936@gbiv.com>

> In appendix A, collected syntax, the production for absolute-URI 
> differs from that given in the body text.

Yep, I missed that -- I wish the collected ABNF could just be generated
from the XSLT.

> Assuming that the body text production (using hier-part) is correct 
> (which I think it is) then the 'path' production is itself not used 
> anywhere, hence redundant.

You are missing the whole point of having it.  The text describing
the syntax says their are five possible matching rules for a path,
only one of which will be matched in any URI reference.  That is
why path is a top node and not used by the URI syntax itself.
It also explains why those rules are not ambiguous, and hence
why reducing them to one production is not desirable.  Nevertheless,
a non-validating grammar will combine all of those into one
component that is called path.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 16:14:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC