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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-05-08 11:45, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> 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

It's pointless, as a URI scheme definition can't override RFC 3986, and 
parsing of scheme name and fragment are already defined by RFC 3986.

Optimally, a new scheme definition just defines the scheme-specific part.

> 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?

No.

> This appear to be the case if one would implicitly define the fragment
> in an URI scheme.

Exactly :-)

Best regards, Julian