Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: FW: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-file-scheme-13.txt

[Daniel Stenberg <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:

>> The query part. It didn't exist in 1738, so introducing that now will break 
>> a lot of old parsers (like mine) even if I recognize that 3986 says that it 
>> should be supported globally. This, for just a vague extension model 
>> without any clear purpose or use case.
>
> It is the first time that I have seen somebody claim that RFC 3986 says that 
> all URI schemes have to support query parts. I'd like to know where in RFC 
> 3986 you found that. Indeed my understanding is that most schemes don't 
> understand or include query parts. The main (but very important) exceptions 
> as far as I'm aware of are http:/https: and mailto:.

Maybe this is just me, but that's my reading of RFC 3986 section 3:

    3.  Syntax Components

    The generic URI syntax consists of a hierarchical sequence of
    components referred to as the scheme, authority, path, query, and
    fragment.

There exists language in 3986 suggesting that things differ between protocols 
but reading that section 3 doesn't make it obvious to me that the query part 
can be opted out (even if as I already mentioned by own parsers do). Not even 
3.4 that details query mentions that.

Section 2.2 also lists '?' as a "Reserved character" also in a generic way and 
it is listed as a delimiter but then goes on to rather mysteriously say:

   "URI producing applications should percent-encode data octets that
    correspond to characters in the reserved set unless these characters
    are specifically allowed by the URI scheme to represent data in that
    component."

... but the file: section of RFC1738 doesn't mention what letters that are 
legal in the path part so it's not clear to me if '?' is a delimiter or part 
of the path, spec-wise.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se