- From: Diwakar Shetty <diwakar.shetty@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:57:08 +0530
- To: Ian Clelland <ian@veryfresh.com>
- CC: www-talk@w3.org
This works on Apache Diwakar Ian Clelland wrote: > > 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 04:26:58 UTC