Re: [apps-discuss] presumption that RFC3986 is correct

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 07 January 2015 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 93A5F1A0055 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 08:57:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 JFNB5Xj4e1hJ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 08:57:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 918CB1A0089 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 08:57:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.194] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LlDx4-1XZHyj3rz4-00b4Oq; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:56:56 +0100
Message-ID: <54AD6554.7080304@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:56:52 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20140926010029.26660.82167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EAACE200D9B0224D94BF52CF2DD166A425A68A90@ex10mb6.qut.edu.au> <CACweHNBEYRFAuw9-vfeyd_wf703cvM3ykZoRMqAokRFYG_O7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR0201MB09602B351692D424A49C6B0DC3650@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CACweHNBN_Bv=jeXQ_VwXi2HzHKNEwZJ1NiF-BJJo_9-mhO60gQ@mail.gmail.com> <54A5730C.8040501@ninebynine.org> <54A583DD.9010602@intertwingly.net> <54A59651.4060306@ninebynine.org> <54A59B26.5000408@intertwingly.net> <54A6AABF.4060406@ninebynine.org> <54A6B6DF.1010206@intertwingly.net> <54A7DC46.2020708@ninebynine.org> <54A7E9F4.80406@intertwingly.net> <54A820EA.20200@ninebynine.org> <54A82CC4.9080606@intertwingly.net> <54A83B72.4010106@cs.tcd.ie> <54A8550A.1020708@intertwingly.net>
In-Reply-To: <54A8550A.1020708@intertwingly.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:fdugLlLOSljeOmjygP4NNY0zaARX26ohZBewj/AEs5LSS+MWKOW oOoRzS+J5zxRXJmqXVRGNPXor6Rhd3eKC3nWUqSpduM/lHXHodv/bdZIe2ZEF8S/CROZgHZ ONTYW8qi2vXutKGYEVSoiVmQjYkdh0nG70jaE7Q3JnmEmq9qKu/lrxzra43asokzJ7Frt2v HhlBXGOAkODg8GbV5ob0g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/iS3ElDPZAd1eTBkWlaA8SVX69zg
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] presumption that RFC3986 is correct
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, 07 Jan 2015 16:57:13 -0000

On 2015-01-03 21:46, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...
> The longer answer isn't all that much longer.  Given that every modern
> programming language (and for that matter, every browser) will have a
> part of their runtime library a concept of either a URI or a URL, and a
> method to parse a string into such a structure, the question you pose is
> equivalent to: "how should URI.parse methods handle unknown schemes"?
>
> Possible answers include: treat the content as hierarchical, and treat
> the content as opaque.  There may be other answers.
> ...

Such as: treat everything the same (as per RFC 3986).

Best regards, Julian