Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-05-08 01:27, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Please note that the URI/IRI registration guidelines (4395bis) have a
> proposed "fix":
> 
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/125
> 
> to add the sentence:
> 
> "However, the registration defines <scheme> and the syntax and
> semantics of <fragment>  depends only on the media type of the
> representation accessed. New scheme definitions MUST NOT define
> syntax or semantics of fragment identifiers; that is, registration
> specifications should define the syntax of <scheme-specific-part> and
> its meaning for each <scheme> defined."
> 
> That is, the recommendation is that scheme registrations do *not*
> specify the syntax or meaning of fragment identifiers.
> 
> So "Added a fragment part to the RTSP URI.  " might not be considered
> an improvement.
> 

Larry,

Can you please clarify something for me. What I have done is that I have
made it clear in the URI syntax that the fragment ABNF construct from
RFC 3986 MAY occur in an valid rtsp URI syntax. Are you saying that this
is not the right thing to do? How could I then indicate the appropriate
syntax  when the fragment identifier occur with the URI scheme being
defined? Can't I even say that fragments is not allowed for a scheme?
This appear to be the case if one would implicitly define the fragment
in an URI scheme.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------