- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:49:44 +0000
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- CC: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Stefan Eissing wrote:
> I think Dare's point was well made:
>
> For HTTP servers and proxies, http://example.com/ and
> HTTP://example.com/ must
> be equivalent URIs.
> They have to follow RFC 2396 in that.
I couldn't find anything in rfc2396 that says HTTP and http must be
treated as equivalent, it does say they should be treated as
equivalent, but that's a different level of specification.
[[[
3.1. Scheme Component
Just as there are many different methods of access to resources,
there are a variety of schemes for identifying such resources. The
URI syntax consists of a sequence of components separated by
reserved characters, with the first component defining the semantics
for the remainder of the URI string.
Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters beginning with a
lower case letter and followed by any combination of lower case
letters, digits, plus ("+"), period ("."), or hyphen ("-"). For
resiliency, programs interpreting URI should treat upper case
letters as equivalent to lower case in scheme names (e.g., allow
"HTTP" as well as "http").
scheme = alpha *( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )
Relative URI references are distinguished from absolute URI in that
they do not begin with a scheme name. Instead, the scheme is
inherited from the base URI, as described in Section 5.2.
]] [1]
As anside, the second para isn't consistent with the production.
Bill de hÓra
[1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 09:51:06 UTC