[Uri-review] Re: [art] Alternative representation of URIs in YANG

[Sampo Syreeni <[e-mail]>]

On 2025-12-05, Martin Thomson wrote:

>> But I'm still trying to square the statement "URIs are more 
>> complicated than your decomposed structure allows for".  So far, they 
>> still appear to be 1-1 to me.  Can an example where conversion 
>> doesn't hold be provided?  A pointer to some text in an RFC would 
>> also be great.
>
> Try RFC 8141 to start.  Or sip: URIs.  Or mailto:.  Or steam:.  Or 
> view-source:.  Or about:.  Or ipfs:. 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml lists a 
> lot of schemes, few of which fit your structure well, I suspect.

I once tried to parse the URI/URL/URN namespace all at once. As declared 
in the relevant RFC's, and by IANA registrations. It's a horrific mess, 
and it leads to a *highly* bloated parser. But I never once ran into 
ambiguity, or even something like a shift-reduce one at LALR(1).

Unlike when I tried parse PICS, in the day. That grammar actually proved 
to have a single, rather long-winded, reduce conflict, making it about 
LALR(18). Plus it wasn't too well defined in its spacing to begin with.

Thus, Martin, make your argument exact. Utilize formal grammars. We can 
read those, and then we don't have to argue anymore.
-- 
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - [e-mail], http://decoy.iki.fi/front
[phone], 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2