- From: Ian Clelland <ian@veryfresh.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 08:54:32 +0000
- To: Diwakar Shetty <diwakar.shetty@oracle.com>
- Cc: www-talk@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:04:08PM +0530, Diwakar Shetty wrote: > Is the following valid HTTP ?? > > telnet web_server_host http_port > GET http:///////////////// HTTP/1.0 I think that this would be syntactically valid HTTP, at least according to the definition of 'absoluteURI' in RFC1945 (S3.2.1), *except* that the scheme is specified as 'http', and it violates S3.2.2, since a hostname is required (and it must be at least one character long). However, I believe that all of these close alternatives are valid: GET /////////////// HTTP/1.0 (since /////////////// is a valid relativeURI) GET http://a/////////////// HTTP/1.0 (since 'a' is a valid hostname, http://a/////////////// becomes a valid http URI) GET xyz://///////////// HTTP/1.0 (since the 'xyz' schema is not defined anywhere, this is a valid absoluteURI, although no HTTP server would know what to do with it) Can I ask what inspired the question in the first place? Is this a real-world discovery, or just an excercise in pathological URIs? Regards, Ian Clelland <ian@veryfresh.com>
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 03:54:34 UTC