- From: Michel Suignard <michelsu@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:22:19 -0800
- To: <uri@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-iri@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: public-iri-request@w3.org [mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Adam M. Costello BOGUS >address, see signature > > >Also, since http://jos%C3%A9.net/ violates RFC-2396, it's hard to predict > how applications will react. Some might reject it, some might pass jos%C3%A9.net > literally to their host name resolver,... In which way does it violate RFC-2396? Could you point to the relevant text? I would agree that it was not the intent to allow it as you would expect the http scheme to use the 'server' notation, not the 'reg_name'. But 'authority' contains both 'server' and 'reg_name'. I was trying to find some prose in RFC-2396 that would restrict the http scheme, but couldn't find it. On the same thread, is there somewhere a formal up-to-date definition in ABNF for current URI schemes, such as http, mailto, ftp, etc...? Otherwise Adam's mail was very useful for my understanding of the issues. Michel Suignard
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 22:23:17 UTC