Re: [apps-discuss] Scope of RFC3986 and successor - what is a URI?

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Fri, 16 January 2015 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel@haxx.se>
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 73CD71ACE9F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:23:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 3_nzCcT7hs28 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (www.haxx.se [IPv6:2a00:1a28:1200:9::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A37C01ACE97 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-7) with ESMTP id t0GGN8Fg019488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:23:08 +0100
Received: from localhost (dast@localhost) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id t0GGN7Xo019480; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:23:07 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: giant.haxx.se: dast owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:23:07 +0100
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: darrel.miller@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <54b9381b.8ca1e00a.243f.ffffcae4@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1501161720240.20283@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <20140926010029.26660.82167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54A94109.5010901@intertwingly.net> <00cf01d02cc7$d5dba4c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B16C2B.9050604@seantek.com> <54B17BBE.4000900@intertwingly.net> <54B18B61.8010308@seantek.com> <54B19435.8070401@intertwingly.net> <54B1B211.3050807@seantek.com> <54B1B682.3070609@intertwingly.net> <012001d02d91$6ec42300$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2781C.4040505@intertwingly.net> <018e01d02dc6$1d03b0a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2CC75.5080900@intertwingly.net> <54B79930.3070009@ninebynine.org> <54B7AEC2.9010109@intertwingly.net> <CAKHUCzz=jZAF-i2_pwGpkER5vNhv95CMwdBCMwigPJ0FA_t4_A@mail.gmail.com> <54B7BD4A.1090803@intertwingly.net> <54B7CF28.7060408@gmx.de> <54B7D605.2060307@intertwingly.net> <f5boaq0gdw5.fsf@troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk> <54B806A2.8020803@intertwingly.net>, <CAKHUCzzN4Eu6R_f2Sf8EtiAp-8w3ds5Yp3-PBHK+B0wGRxEtmw@mail.gmail.com> <54b9381b.8ca1e00a.243f.ffffcae4@mx.google.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1129329158-1260164941-1421425388=:20283"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/7tnB6wvEQBRXjmoP16QxQoInyMs>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Scope of RFC3986 and successor - what is a URI?
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: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:23:14 -0000

On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, darrel.miller@gmail.com wrote:

> Here is something that round-trips a URL parse/stringify transformation, and 
> actually works, despite being an invalid URI and invalid IRI:
>
>  https://www.google.com/?q=[z]
>
> My gut feeling is that allowing this to be valid is a possible change, as 
> I've said. I appreciate this is at odds with RFC 3986, but if URL parsers do 
> generally ignore the error that's fine.
̈́
$ curl 'https://www.google.com/?q=[z]'
curl: (3) [globbing] bad range in column 32

This isn't strictly the URI parser saying this, but since we know that [] are 
not legal in a URI we (curl developers) could use them for additional 
functionality...

Just suggesting that changing this will make some things break.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se