[apps-discuss] Potential issues in RFC 3986

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-01-02 16:18, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...
>> I fully accept that there may be desirable agent behaviours that are not
>> covered here, and that an additional document may be desired to describe
>> these, particularly where the behaviours impact interoperability.
>
> I would like to discuss that topic too.
>
> Whether that document is separate or not will depend on the outcome of
> the discussion as to whether RFC 3986 matches current, deployed
> applications.
> ...

It could be separate, even if we find out that we want to update RFC 3986.

> ...
>> For me, the question of what URI.parse *does* goes beyond what the core
>> URI spec needs to define.  But I agree about operating system specific
>> behaviours of file: URIs being outside the desirable scope of that core
>> spec.
>
> Can I get you to explain what you mean by this.  We can ignore operating
> system specific behaviors for the moment.  I would think that the basic
> operation of identifying the scheme, path, fragment, etc for a given
> input is exactly what a URI spec needs to define.  Why do you think
> otherwise and/or what am I missing?
> ...

RFC 3986 does that for valid URIs, as far as I can tell. If you take the 
non-normative regexp in the appendix into account, it even des that for 
many more strings.

> ...
>> In a brief sampling, I couldn't see any divergence which is likely to be
>> resolvable by changing the URI spec.
>
> I encourage you to spend more time with that data.  An example of a
> concrete problem is handing of hosts in a UTS-46 compliant manner.
> ...


Which test, specifically?

Best regards, Julian