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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 29 Jan 2015, at 9:06 am, Roy T. Fielding <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 28, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2015-01-28 22:40, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Jan 28, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> On 2015-01-28 06:36, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>>> ... which brings about another interesting observation -- only http and https define fragments in their syntax; the other schemes do not.
>>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> It's because you asked for that in <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013AprJun/0187.html>, and apparently were successful in convincing Roy.
>>> 
>>> It is a very very very old debate regarding whether the fragment is part
>>> of a URI or something attached to the end of a URI, but that was resolved
>>> in RFC3986 (since the only thing that really matters here is that a fragment
>>> is going to be parsed as such regardless of the scheme).
>>> 
>>> HTTP was merely updated to reflect what STD66 calls a URI.
>> 
>> I agree that the fragment is part of the URI; the question, as far as I understand, is whether the *scheme* definition should include the fragment, given the fact that you can attach a fragment to any URI anyway.
> 
> The answer is "no".  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.3
> 
> I don't know how I got beaten into submission on that for RFC7230.

I followed the e-mail discussion, resulting issue to the ultimate commit:
   <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2279>

I wouldn't call it a beating -- you didn't seem to need much convincing at all :)

That aside, it looks like we need an errata here...

It does look like draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg clarifies this, which is gratifying.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/