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

Re: RFC2396bis - implementation results using revised syntax

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:49:27 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040206144205.00bac398@127.0.0.1>
To: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org>, uri@w3.org

At 15:48 05/02/04 -0700, Mike Brown wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
> > Test case:  "http://example.123./aaa/bbb#ccc"
> > I'd like to confirm that this is now regarded as a valid URI.  In previous
> > versions of this specification, it was not (according to my interpretation
> > and implementation).
>
>The discussion and resolution can be found in the issues doc:
>http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ietf-uri/rev-2002/issues.html?rev=1.55#038-qualified
>
>You can see there that the productions were changed at your request, so it's
>probably safe to assume that the elimination of toplabel was deliberate, in
>order to fully accomodate unqualified hostnames. Issue 016 also touches on
>this.

That particular change didn't change the status of the test case mentioned 
(i.e. with a trailing '.')  -- I noticed that my earlier implementation, 
based on didn't accept that.

But rather than discuss such minutiae, the point of my post was simply to 
draw attention to the change, which surprised me, so that folks would have 
a chance to say whether or not that's what they expected.

>If you have any more test cases to share (aside from the ones in the spec),
>I'd like to see them, just so I can further verify my own implementation.

My test suite can be seen at:
   http://www.ninebynine.org/Software/HaskellUtils/Network/URITest.hs

(At this time, my code is being rewritten and doesn't pass all of the 
normalization tests.)

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 10:28:57 UTC

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