IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Wed, 28 January 2015 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684FC1A1A00 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:40:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9lfjxjZahNst for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:40:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845B01A038B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:40:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A276B0070; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:40:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=kC4kUrPRxVG61wKGgJ0e5g+oWu0=; b=ffAde0ZO9Z8RZM+VtOvVKNrRMKbq 5ssrenZ9aJlSz7HyRu2skIXyNGVgovi3wvduqbdPOFQQuOIHtR+XNkOMe48dT2Y7 RiDWiuFXzVTfS+lhNgmbYZ1m71zsKAl6OdgBWrN65c4O8N1th105RQjqtWtH2zrq dbmnUAa/kibDbMo=
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (ip68-228-83-124.oc.oc.cox.net [68.228.83.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2C0A6B0059; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:40:27 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <54C95132.2060402@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:40:27 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <154ABFBB-AB8C-447A-89A3-D1746EFBF1C6@gbiv.com>
References: <C5B10293-E6F6-4348-9782-C9C00A4476CE@mnot.net> <CACweHNBVOrVMesB7HOjPNHe5FtzL1k9XDGAHUXAx5DbOSYv5jA@mail.gmail.com> <A1E5B0EC-FAD5-4178-8C7B-540BEB61DC06@mnot.net> <54AEB660.1020701@intertwingly.net> <F122ADA8-4A96-4F88-BB9F-3C5C6A544067@mnot.net> <54C84872.5040902@intertwingly.net> <EF1E36FA-6A30-4A65-9520-5A31571EE445@mnot.net> <54C95132.2060402@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/dn4vWWC1_CeEMadDg8pOyZMmfZQ>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fun with URLs and regex
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:40:29 -0000

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.

....Roy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email