Re: [Uri-review] scheme registration request

Hi Timothy,

You can try and bend the rules of the specification as much as you want,
but if you don't follow the defined parsing rules, existing internet
infrastructure will simply not support your new scheme.

The point is: with browsers and back-end systems on the internet all
parsing of URIs is based on the separation characters, which separates
different types of content in the URI.

The ":" is used as a separator between the scheme's name and the resource's
name. Everywhere. If it cannot be found, your string will likely not be
parsed by any existing system, including web browsers and web servers.

Similarly, the "#" is a separator for the fragment part of a URI. As such,
it's removed by web browsers before sending the URI to a web server because
fragments are interpreted only locally in the web browsers.

You can't treat the separation characters as a generic list of separation
characters that you can choose from - they have a meaning and
interpretation.

I would suggest reformulating your scheme in the following way:

drop:string

E.g.
drop:sd54g54 | drop:34.56 | drop:fgte8g-234.45

BTW: What is it about the "#" character that makes you insist on it?
Also, have you tried to implement an example use of your scheme?

Hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Silvia.



On Sun, Jul 10, 2022, 3:41 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> wrote:

> Dan,
>
> From RFC3986:
>
> 1.2.3 URI scheme specifications can define opaque identifiers by
>    disallowing use of slash characters, question mark characters, and
>    the URIs "scheme:." and "scheme:..".
>
> 5.2.1 Note that only the scheme component is required to be
>    present in a base URI; the other components may be empty or
>    undefined.
>
> 5.1.3 Note that if the retrieval was the result of a redirected request,
> the last URI used (i.e., the URI that resulted in the actual retrieval of
> the representation) is the base URI.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> > On 07/09/2022 1:10 PM Daniel R. Tobias <dan@tobias.name> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 9, 2022, at 6:24 AM, Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sorry that you feel this is redundant.
> > > I am following the steps for a permanent registration in section 7.2
> of RFC7595 (Registration Procedures).
> >
> > You have yet to give an adequate response to the point of your syntax
> noncompliance that has been raised repeatedly by several people. Instead
> you just keep making more drafts with the same problem.
>
>