Critical bug 4916 (was: Notes on validome test suite / validators comparison)

Alex wrote:
 
>> The regexp in STD 66 is a one-liner, and determining the set
>> of visible ASCII characters allowed in an URI is "possible".
 
> My post was not about the ASCII character issue only...There
> are some "URI" problems more, a schema validator doesn't catch
> at the moment.

Well, it's about time to fix this.  After the installation of a
"popular browser" on a "popular OS" virtually all applications
allowing to click on URIs could indirectly start malware.  It's 
hard to decide whose fault that is, but saying that it's only
the fault of the user is no option.

All, please "vote" for bug 4916 and support its reclassification
as "critical" with "priority 1" for an immediate fix.  We all had
almost three years to think about RFC 3986 and 3987.  It's a good
thing that the IDN test finally forces some action.
 
> A "RFC Conformity Checker" for URIs is much more than this single
> ASCII issue.

The generic RFC 3986 syntax is no rocket science, just ignore all
idiosyncrasies of legacy definitions as in RFC 2368, admittedly
mailto: is a hard case.  The syntax in the expired mailto-bis draft
is better.

For a validator you're not forced to guess what invalid syntax is
supposed to mean, simply flag it as invalid and be done with it.

> NONtrivial...;-)

Maybe we can agree on an "interesting clerical task".  The xmpp 
folks (i.e. Peter) had to fix their syntax for 3986-compatibility,
they (i.e. he) managed.

 Frank

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 10:29:18 UTC