Re: Empty URI & URI references

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 16:08, John Cowan wrote:
> Frans Englich scripsit:
> > * RFC 2396, C.2. Abnormal Examples
> > * RFC 2396, 4.2. Same-document References
>
> Your difficulty is that you are working with RFC 2396 instead of its
> replacement RFC 3986.

It indeed is, but as long as the specific code in question stays with RFC 
2396, I have as well :|

> > In 2396, there is no syntactic definition of  
> what a URI is; in 3986, there is (roughly an absolute URI with or
> without a fragment identifier).
>
> > If I'm going to take a shot, I'd say that empty URIs are invalid,
> > but empty URI references are valid.

Which further makes me conclude that allowing the empty string for the class 
in question would be the right thing since it's dealing with URI references 
rather than URIs, because it for example accept relative URIs and performs 
resolution between URI references.


Cheers,

		Frans

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 08:33:26 UTC