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

RE: Question regarding RFC 3986, Section 3.2

From: Robert Buck <Robert.Buck@mathworks.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 15:39:25 -0400
Message-ID: <EFEB6396440FB440ADD8A753B5530B9C0601033E@MESSAGE-AH.ad.mathworks.com>
To: "uri" <uri@w3.org>

You indicated that "scheme://" was legal syntax.

Using the regular expression cited in the text of the spec on this uri


which when you run through the recomposition algorithm cited results in:


which is somewhat different from the input. Then is "scheme:" and
"scheme://" equivalent?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce Lilly [mailto:blilly@erols.com] 
>Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 2:53 PM
>To: uri@w3.org
>Cc: Robert Buck
>Subject: RE: Question regarding RFC 3986, Section 3.2
>On Fri May 27 2005 13:44, Robert Buck wrote:
>> Is the operation of parsing any uri into its five major components, 
>> then recomposing them according to section 5.3, NOT guaranteed to 
>> produce a result identical to the input?
>> scheme:// -> 
>{scheme,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined} -> scheme:
>> Is this true?
>Depends on what you mean by "parsing", "any" and "uri".  Using 
>a regular expression with some instances of broken URI syntax 
>may well lead to unexpected results.
Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 19:39:29 UTC

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