Re: [apps-discuss] Fun with URLs and regex

[Sean Leonard <[e-mail]>]

On 1/28/2015 9:14 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>
> I don't know what I've said by leaving off the fragment part. 
> According to RFC 3986 I'm not allowed to touch the it, but now I have 
> a collected ABNF for 'file' URIs that doesn't have fragments. I think 
> my way forward is to include the fragment part in the grammar, and 
> then deflect it the way 3986, 7230, etc. do.

More than anything else, this is probably an artifact of the way that 
ABNF is written. It is not possible to "subclass" ABNF expressions; 
however, that is what URI scheme registrations should do. I.e., they 
should say "this URI scheme subclasses/profiles the following ABNF 
productions from RFC 3986...scheme = "file", hier-part = such-and-such 
restrictions". Something like that. (In the case of file: , there is the 
other problem that some things that are not valid per RFC 3986, like the 
use of |, you want to say something about anyway, so can be both 
restrictive and permissive in different ways.)

>     ​ ​
>
>     What makes you think that dereferenced files don't have a well-defined
>     content type?  The client might not know what it is, but that doesn't
>     mean the content type doesn't exist, and any decision to process the
>     file is basically an assumption of some content type (and its rules
>     for processing fragments).
>
>
> Perhaps I s​hould have said "well known" instead of "well-defined," or 
> that the *means of determining* the content type is not well defined.
>

Sounds about right.

Sean