W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2006

Re: path-abempty in URI

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 16:14:02 -0800
Message-Id: <36A75EA5-A445-4D59-926E-C3769760AD5F@gbiv.com>
Cc: uri <uri@w3.org>
To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>

On Jan 7, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Tom Petch wrote:

>>> My understanding from reading the text is that <path-abempty>
>>> exists to ensure that there is always an authority between
>>> the // that comes after scheme: and before the // that may
>>> start a path

yes, but the authority may be empty  (i.e., authority == "").

> It was not so much a question of allowing an empty reg-name, as of  
> requiring an
> authority to be present, to be of at least one character.

It does no such thing.  See <file:///etc/hosts>

> I wanted to check
> that my reading of the ABNF for authority in URI was correct

No, your reading is not correct.

    authority     = [ userinfo "@" ] host [ ":" port ]
    host          = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name
    reg-name      = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims )

which means that a zero-length reg-name produces an empty authority
and thus is valid both in ABNF and in practice.

....Roy
Received on Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:14:08 UTC

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