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

Re: grammar fix for path

From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:38:26 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200403260638.i2Q6cQls084745@chilled.skew.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Ray Merkert <rmerkert@alphatech.com>, uri@w3.org

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I have tried various ways of explaining it in the text and finally
> went back to multiple definitions of path, though I hope I've done
> a better job of disambiguating the different cases than I did for
> 2396.  I would appreciate it if the grammar-driven parsing experts
> could have a look at
>     http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html  (or .xml)
> and see if the new ABNF rules work (I've already tested them with
> the abnf.c tool).

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?

Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 01:38:23 UTC

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