Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

Timothy Mcsweeney <> Sun, 31 May 2020 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55F03A0C29 for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 12:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.795
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b9nmTZOog57W for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 12:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 927103A0C28 for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 12:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (mreueus003 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LZgcc-1jGMPh1MUO-00lVlW; Sun, 31 May 2020 21:15:57 +0200
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 15:15:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <>
Reply-To: Timothy Mcsweeney <>
To: Michael Wojcik <>,
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev31
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:/3zOHh5wSg3cYyiLjEGLJmUm5G1zoU+c1s+0TnMfYxTuNIX8kxO 0UXhdQ473oa2Ejh/92t2Ao8PXZ/jevOeJBxQhw1INvNkFHGT39LQA59ANW8z6zMWydFVSTs HW5q/MwneBobvAiLO+BEzbZOcLlEh8bl2xg/5uZnskuWnJDO2IFeLD4W+XbmDQdVyxcHpQA 6OFGzLvrPf4bMQUuIQUoQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:c1MIxM29d5U=:m3gY874pby0uz8zYsTmr2z rw4j+2+qdkH3FHAOwGhhW501RdxappzvinBChuhgzTGxggNRHJpWbdift5BzpA96YaTOyBzU8 auB7BdUPpElQ945IyrUzoa6RKJG8RN5PlCkyR7uVDroN+G/dtDtoGzXhhwe7+oZd5dJbfhGP9 D22S8nWhHnJApjObil3evwHOuD+bwJao0EYWVnVpaBYFuBVNvgKZ9Zu6RcY61zk+8q53n5rtL 8BYmo8uMzNjQWOuPNWqm1tX5RqpA1TigfQ9GOcGNoJD2yg8APMu6Us1PlUfayT0CPeOVVTveg CXrsv0JTL/Ivshs3vgaghdCrGbioz2aYIexCJPrpgHE1258UcjWzoRXa8G8+VAVBmiKnohKuw pYQR7pl/lwIcOIzuSgn8D4IBN3ld5cW+8wk62FiuEHE+n1PIHO3ue+uEFXa974OJDNFaXHLyV fBX08JMXuiUh2RAnpAnOgBTYEKx8whJd0e34IjhYeZhYktnXTlv87FqSUNq8aHGnyALNLpf2V 7GZDpXkO9z93rrG5KuCP3lPxovxIlQiTKxEz5ond5IPegjkBMDhG5PC8vgVT5WrckhDThxW3H 5tNs6tHjszhhpkgfMJsvH4v1Auiwi9607R/AgLOHcnu2NsFo30agB3qhQ9h9Jm/IXnn4R7cd2 VuYhRV4mOBXgkSqbyxeOsUIkfdzjk8UyjXhPncAvsVX+WazydDXyXjBukSNgAt2u6+wy5BGHu Ipyww5w+8ilTbTvT4kY1RT74aIryj2kurFEhMPySWZ11ef9F5IsBU/pSMOr0opJAxSldGVd96 MRI4iQwK1URjtEMkm/Wtfua0M1qhTw91Nny5/pRNgF6MGjNwUjj/8mbuO9Gpl3mTcv/m7BP
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 19:16:06 -0000

>The issue here is that you're misinterpreting RFC 3986.

I noticed two of the original authors are on the email list.  It would
be nice to hear what the original interpretation was.

>To be honest, I don't understand why you're being so difficult about this.
Having a different perspective is no being difficult. 
Imagine the first color blind person telling everyone the grass is dark gray.

On May 30, 2020 at 10:01 AM Michael Wojcik <> wrote:

From: Uri-review [mailto:] On Behalf Of Timothy Mcsweeney
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 06:20
To: Graham Klyne;
And if people want to make parsers that don't work with the spec it doesn't
become the spec's problem.
That's not the issue here. The issue here is that you're misinterpreting RFC 3986.

3986 section 3 is not ambiguous. The first production is:

URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]

The colon is explicit and not optional. A minimal URI consists of a scheme, a colon, and a hier-part. There's no wiggle room there, and no amount of casuistry regarding other parts of 3986 will change that.

Someone could also point to 1.2.3, where the language clearly notes that the colon is the scheme delimiter; or 3.5, which makes it clear that the hash symbol is always the fragment delimiter. But those arguments are redundant in light of the generic-URI top-level production that begins section 3.

To be honest, I don't understand why you're being so difficult about this. What's your motive for trying to find grounds in 3986 for repurposing the fragment identifier?

Michael Wojcik