Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 20 April 2013 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCD021F89AF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.381
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zIwfqOgNk6k5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781F721F890F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTSyf-0008BX-Ng for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:16:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:16:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTSyf-0008BX-Ng@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTSyc-0008An-MC for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:16:54 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTSyb-0002M1-Um for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:16:54 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6257509B6; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 04:16:31 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <51724CBB.6060300@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:16:28 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D323C524-1176-46FB-ABC7-727ECA6B2FB9@mnot.net>
References: <EBBA02BC-CAAF-4CE3-807F-85D87A9D30C8@mnot.net> <517243A2.9000006@gmx.de> <AED6FBF2-724F-424B-AFC2-06A5C73F8B14@mnot.net> <51724CBB.6060300@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.307, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UTSyb-0002M1-Um d31f80a78fe444a3a6d1150a397b8bd4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D323C524-1176-46FB-ABC7-727ECA6B2FB9@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17408
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 20/04/2013, at 6:07 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-04-20 09:30, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> On 20/04/2013, at 5:28 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2013-04-20 06:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> P1 sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 define the HTTP and HTTPS URI schemes without fragment identifiers.
>>>> 
>>>> While it's true that HTTP sends these URIs without fragids "on the wire" in the request-target, the schemes *do* allow fragids pretty much everywhere else they're used (including some places in HTTP, e.g., the Location header).
>>>> 
>>>> Given that this is going to be the definition for these URI schemes, and we already require that the fragid be omitted in the request-target, shouldn't the syntax allow a fragment identifier?
>>> 
>>> No.
>>> 
>>> Fragment identifiers are allowed for *any* URI scheme; the scheme definition doesn't need to include it.
>> 
>> 
>> Then why do we include query?
> 
> Because we are defining a <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#absolute-uri>.


But this section *isn't* defining just a single protocol element; it's defining the form of HTTP URIs. 

I suspect the right thing to do here is to specify that HTTP(s) URIs use the path-abempty form of the hier-part, give some examples, and leave the rest of the ABNF to RFC3986 (or its successors).

At any rate, I don't see the http-uri or https-uri rules actually used anywhere normatively, so I *think* this is editorial. I.e., it's on your conscience :)

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/