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

[Matthew Kerwin <[e-mail]>]

On 29/01/2015, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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 to this affects what I write in the 'file' scheme draft. I
was advised early on to not mention fragments (which I took as
"disallow by omission") because, while it's easy to define syntax, the
scheme also has to define semantics, and fragment semantics are tied
to content type, and dereferenced 'file' URIs don't have a
well-defined content type.

Whether or not I mention it comes back to the definition and intended
use-case of RFC 3986; if it defines an 'abstract' syntax - in the POO
sense - then there's no such thing as a universal parser (i.e. It's
impossible to parse a URI with an unknown scheme). If it defines a
low-level structure, then any URI can be parsed, but the individual
components can't be validated without deferring to scheme-specific
machinery.

If the former and I don't include the fragment in 'file', it isn't
allowed. If the latter, I just leave a hole in the spec.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/