RE: 255 character limit in reg-name

I'm not sure it's a new feature. 2396 defined authority as either server or reg_name, where reg_name had no length limit. Consequently, any implementation that assumes a 255 byte limit in authority is broken today. It seems to me that removing the limit from authority in 2396bis doesn't add a feature but rather provides the same functionality that was already available in 2396 via reg_name.
 
Dave

________________________________

From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@acm.org]
Sent: Fri 7/16/2004 12:00 PM
To: Dave McAlpin; 'Roy T. Fielding'
Cc: uri@w3.org
Subject: RE: 255 character limit in reg-name



In moving a proposal along standards track (from
 Draft Standard to Full Standard), it's important
not to add features. If a length limit was in place
for URIs and software written that assumes the limit,
then a new specification ("URIs with names longer
than 256 bytes") would become a new Proposed Standard,
rather than a modification to the existing standard.

Those who want to increase or remove the limit need
to demonstrate that the widely deployed URI software
does not assume the limit in order to function
properly.

Larry