- From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:09:32 -0600 (MDT)
- To: uri@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > and a paragraph to the sections on scheme and absolute-URI to > indicate that scheme specifications must define a syntax that > is a subset of absolute-URI and thus don't have to redefine > fragment for every scheme spec > > <http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#absolute-uri>. I think that between this and the final paragraph of section 3.1 (which I was overlooking), the question in my last email -- about what leeway a scheme has in overriding the generic syntax, what jurisdiction it has over URIs not conforming to its restrictions, and what should be done with such URIs -- has been adequately addressed. In both places, by "subset", I assume you mean that the scheme can define any syntax (not necessarily in terms of rfc2396bis rules) such that a URI conforming to that syntax would not fail to also conform to the absolute-URI syntax rule. I kinda wish it were stated more like that, but I suppose it's good enough as "subset". Anyway, given this bit, and the advice in sec. 3.1, I feel the RFC 1738 scheme definition replacement specs should all be quite clear about whether and how to interpret a URI that has extraneous components or that otherwise does not conform to the scheme's specific syntax. -Mike
Received on Sunday, 26 September 2004 00:09:35 UTC