Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: xmpp URIs and 3986 (was: Template URIs vs. URIs)
Newsgroups: gmane.org.w3c.uri
Date: Friday 6th October 2006 20:14:28 UTC (over 11 years ago)
Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>> RFC 4622 now happily uses _anything_ that's not explicitly
>> "verboten" by RFC 3986.  The xmpp: scheme was reviewed here.

> Then RFC 4622 is broken and should be removed from the standards
> track.  It cannot override a requirement in a full standard:

>     URI scheme specifications must define their own
>     syntax so that all strings matching their scheme-specific
>     syntax will also match the  grammar, as
>     described in Section 4.3.

For a requirement I'd expect MUSTard instead of a mere "must".

The RFC 4622  doesn't always match the 3986 .
No problem for , , and anything in
 also covered by  or ":".

4622  is ! $     ( ) * + , ; = [ \ ] ^ ` { | }
3986 sub-delims are ! $ & ' ( ) * + , ; =

Omitting "&" and "'" is no issue for a match, the ":" is also
not interesting, but "[", "\", "]", "^", "`", "{", "|", and "}"
won't match.

4622  vs. 3986  is in essence the same issue,
the  allows "@" in addition to ":" and ,
and  needs that "@" in its first segment.

The optional  could match an optional second ,
so far it's fine.  But its  is completely unrelated
:

4622 resallow is ! " $ & ' ( ) * + , : ; < = > [ \ ] ^ ` { | }
3986 pchar has @ !   $ & ' ( ) * + , : ;   =

4622 doesn't need the "@" in , but it uses the same
8 additional characters as in , plus '"', "<", ">",
for a total of 11 unmatched characters.

If you say that's broken then the URI review process is broken.

I never checked these details before, I only looked at the IRI
example in the xmpp-URI drafts, and how to get IRI to URI right.

And of course I hoped that " < > \ ^ ` { | } are still "invalid"
anywhere within URIs, even if RFC 3986 doesn't care to mention
this explicitly.  You already said that you don't want this as
erratum, how about plan B, submit it as complete 3986bis draft ?

Frank
 
CD: 3ms