- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 15:47:48 -0700
- To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Oct 6, 2006, at 1:14 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >>> RFC 4622 now happily uses _anything_ that's not explicitly >>> "verboten" by RFC 3986. The xmpp: scheme was reviewed here. > >> Then RFC 4622 is broken and should be removed from the standards >> track. It cannot override a requirement in a full standard: > >> URI scheme specifications must define their own >> syntax so that all strings matching their scheme-specific >> syntax will also match the <absolute-URI> grammar, as >> described in Section 4.3. > > For a requirement I'd expect MUSTard instead of a mere "must". It is not an interoperability issue. All URIs must match the URI syntax -- that is the whole point of 3986. > The RFC 4622 <nodeid> doesn't always match the 3986 <userinfo>. > No problem for <unreserved>, <pct-encoded>, and anything in > <nodeallow> also covered by <sub-delims> or ":". > > 4622 <nodeallow> is ! $ ( ) * + , ; = [ \ ] ^ ` { | } > 3986 sub-delims are ! $ & ' ( ) * + , ; = > > Omitting "&" and "'" is no issue for a match, the ":" is also > not interesting, but "[", "\", "]", "^", "`", "{", "|", and "}" > won't match. > > 4622 <pathxmpp> vs. 3986 <segment> is in essence the same issue, > the <segment> allows "@" in addition to ":" and <sub-delims>, > and <pathxmpp> needs that "@" in its first segment. > > The optional <resid> could match an optional second <segment>, > so far it's fine. But its <resallow> is completely unrelated > <pchar>: > > 4622 resallow is ! " $ & ' ( ) * + , : ; < = > [ \ ] ^ ` { | } > 3986 pchar has @ ! $ & ' ( ) * + , : ; = > > 4622 doesn't need the "@" in <resallow>, but it uses the same > 8 additional characters as in <nodeallow>, plus '"', "<", ">", > for a total of 11 unmatched characters. > > If you say that's broken then the URI review process is broken. Submitting a document for an IRI scheme pretty much guarantees that it won't be reviewed. It should have just defined a URI scheme and let the IRI spec define the translation. > I never checked these details before, I only looked at the IRI > example in the xmpp-URI drafts, and how to get IRI to URI right. > > And of course I hoped that " < > \ ^ ` { | } are still "invalid" > anywhere within URIs, even if RFC 3986 doesn't care to mention > this explicitly. You already said that you don't want this as > erratum, how about plan B, submit it as complete 3986bis draft ? There will not be any changes to 3986 -- it is correct. Just submit errata for the mistakes in 4622. ....Roy
Received on Friday, 6 October 2006 22:48:01 UTC