Re: grammar fix for path

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
>  (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