[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> writes:
> RFC 1738 describes Prospero URLs that look like this:
>
> prospero://host.dom//pros/name
>
> RFC 1738 is explicit that the double slash at the beginning of the
> path is allowed.
>
>
> In RFC 2396 and RFC 2396bis, these appear to now be illegal. Is this
> correct? Or am I misreading the BNF somehow? Are there any URI scheme
> besides Prospero where this is likely to be an issue?
I'd agree with your reading of 1738 and 2396.
Another scheme that comes to mind is FTP. RFC 1738 explicitly says in
3.2.2 that a slash that is part of a <cwd> element must be escaped.
Extrapolating, RFC 2396 implies that the original URL is not a valid
URI and should be rewritten as:
prospero://host.dom/%2Fpros/name
The introduction of 2396 has this disclaimer:
This document updates and merges "Uniform Resource Locators"
[RFC1738] and "Relative Uniform Resource Locators" [RFC1808] in order
to define a single, generic syntax for all URI. It excludes those
portions of RFC 1738 that defined the specific syntax of individual
URL schemes; those portions will be updated as separate documents, as
will the process for registration of new URI schemes.
--
Pete Forman -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
WesternGeco -./\.- by myself and does not represent
pete.forman@westerngeco.com -./\.- opinion of Schlumberger, Baker
http://petef.port5.com -./\.- Hughes or their divisions.
|
