Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

text version:

Hi Henry,
I apologize for anything that was misleading as that was certainly not my intent. I will separate those two statements. The only similarity I wanted to point out was that 'tel' and 'leaptofrogans' use less than all five scheme components. Perhaps 'geo:' would have been a better example?

For the syntax, I wasn't sure exactly how much info was needed. I thought that only the scheme and path were required. Maybe I could change the reference to [RFC3986] section 2.2? If you think it would be better, should I write it out more like this?

path = / path-noscheme ; begins with a non-colon segment
          / path-rootless ; begins with a segment
          / path-empty ; zero characters

path-noscheme = segment-nz-nc *( "/" segment )
path-rootless = segment-nz *( "/" segment )
path-empty = 0<pchar>

segment = *pchar
segment-nz = 1*pchar
segment-nz-nc = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / "@" )
                       ; non-zero-length segment without any colon ":"

pchar =      unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@"

Hi Martin,
I know at first glance it might look out of place but the #fg34htx part isn't a fragment. I think the "drop" part will be recognized as the scheme name because of its dereferencing.

> On 05/19/2020 11:47 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Henry,
> I apologize for anything that was misleading as that was certainly not my intent. I will separate those two statements. The only similarity I wanted to point out was that 'tel' and 'leaptofrogans' use less than all five scheme components. Perhaps 'geo:' would have been a better example?
> 
> For the syntax, I wasn't sure exactly how much info was needed. I thought that only the scheme and path were required. Maybe I could change the reference to [RFC3986] section 2.2? If you think it would be better, should I write it out more like this?
> 
> path = / path-noscheme ; begins with a non-colon segment
> / path-rootless ; begins with a segment
> / path-empty ; zero characters
> 
> path-noscheme = segment-nz-nc *( "/" segment )
> path-rootless = segment-nz *( "/" segment )
> path-empty = 0<pchar>
> 
> segment = *pchar
> segment-nz = 1*pchar
> segment-nz-nc = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / "@" )
> ; non-zero-length segment without any colon ":"
> 
> pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@"
> 
> 
> Hi Martin,
> I know at first glance it might look out of place but the #fg34htx part isn't a fragment. I think the "drop" part will be recognized as the scheme name because of its dereferencing.
> 
> 
> > On May 19, 2020 at 5:40 AM "Henry S. Thompson" < ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Timothy Mcsweeney writes:
> > 
> > > This is a request for a review of the 'drop' URI scheme. The
> > > draft can be found here
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcsweeney-drop-scheme/
> > Without commenting on any other aspect of the proposed scheme, and
> > mostly just to save people time, I found the following aspect of the
> > proposal somewhat misleading:
> > 
> > "Similar to the previously registered 'tel' [RFC3966] and
> > 'leaptofrogans' [RFC8589] URIs, the 'drop' URI scheme is
> > syntactically correct but does not need to use all 5 of the
> > parse-able components available to it. The 'drop' scheme uses the
> > number sign '#' as a general delimiter as seen in Appendix
> > A. Collected ABNF [RFC3986]. The scheme syntax is as follows:
> > 
> > " drop-uri = 'drop#' character string
> > 
> > drop # fg34htx
> > \__/ \_/ \_____/
> > | | |
> > <scheme> | <scheme-specific-part>
> > <gen-delim>
> > "
> > 
> > I read this as implying that
> > 
> > 1) 'tel' and 'leaptofrogans' URIs did not begin "tel:" and
> > "leaptofrogans:";
> > 2) The 3986 ABNF for URIs recognises "drop#fg34htx" as a URI.
> > 
> > Neither of these is in fact that case. The two referenced schemes
> > require ':' after the 'scheme' component, and the 'URI' production does
> > _not_ recognise the above example. (The 'URI-reference' production does,
> > but not using the 'scheme' production to cover the "drop" part.)
> > 
> > ht
> > --
> > Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
> > 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
> > Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
> > URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> > [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
> > 
> > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> > Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Uri-review mailing list
> > Uri-review@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review