W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Reg-name conflict between 2396 and 3986

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:08:33 -0700
Message-Id: <2deba58ca10ec6ac418a3e2e5a4d290d@gbiv.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org, xerces-j-dev@xml.apache.org
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>

On Apr 8, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> An issue has been raised with Xerces's schema validation of certain 
> kinds of URIs that appear to be legal in 2396 and illegal in 3986. See 
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1060 for details.
>
> Briefly it appears that an indefinite number of colon and @ characters 
> were allowed in reg-names in RFC 2396 and forbidden in RFC 3986.
> This doesn't seem to be called out as a change in D2 of 3986.
>
> For instance, dcp.tcp.pft://192.168.0.1:1002:3002?fec=1&crc=0 is legal 
> in 2396 and not in 3986.
>
> Was this decision deliberate?

Yes

> Or did it accidentally fall out of other changes made to the BNF 
> grammar? Or am I missing something obvious, and this URI is legal (or 
> illegal) in both RFCs?

No URI schemes were defined using the reg_name syntax of 2396,
and therefore it was removed.

....Roy
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2005 04:08:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC