Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

[Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

I followed your instructions and I could not recreate what you wanted me to see.

Here are the two pages I made:

<http://www.soupsdeli.com/base.html>

<http://www.soupsdeli.com/drop>

Perhaps it had something to do with the hosting provider??  I'm not sure what's wrong here.  

Anyways, I'm glad to be here doing this.  Being an outsider, I was very nervous about a review on this proposed scheme because everyone on this mailing list is 1000X more knowledgeable than me.  I thought for sure that this review process was going to be a good way for the IETF crowd to blast my ignorance and be rid of me for a long while.

Just getting past the nits checker was a bit of a challenge for me.  But I have come to realize the real value in airing things out early is the advantage of perspective.  I suspected I already knew the outcome of your experiment, but not wanting to discount other ideas too quickly is something I could use more practice with.  And I'm glad I tried it.  Seeing things with a more open mind helped me find an error in this first draft that I haven't been called out on yet! (will be fixing that in draft-01).  So I am already grateful.

Maybe we could do a different experiment?  Maybe you know of a way for me to try out my dereferencing and test the "#" as a delimiter?

Sincerely, 

Tim

On May 20, 2020 at 2:25 AM "Martin J. Dürst" < [e-mail]> wrote:

Hello Timothy,

On 20/05/2020 00:47, Timothy Mcsweeney 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?

In the extreme, only the scheme is needed. "dav:" is an example. But

without a colon, it's not a scheme.

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 / ":" / "@"

I'm not sure what these parts of the grammar are supposed to do here,

but you can't just start in the middle of the grammar and claim that you

get an URI.

Hi Martin,

I know at first glance it might look out of place but the #fg34htx part isn't a

fragment.

By the definitions of RFC 3986, it is a fragment (identifier). This is

independent of what you want to call it.

I think the "drop" part will be recognized as the scheme name because

of its dereferencing.

Please do the following, as an easy experiment:

- Create a simple Web page somewhere, e.g. called base.html,

and in it, include the following part:

<a href='drop#fg34htx'>Link to drop URI</a>

- In the same directory, create another Web page, with the file name

simply being 'drop' (without extension). Way down in that Web page,

include the following:

<a id='#fg34htx' name='#fg34htx'>Fragment fg34htx</a>

- Activate the link in the first page, and observe how it goes to the

fragment in the second page.

[If you set up the pages on the server, you may have to take some care

that the 'drop' file is really served with an HTML media type; this may

be a bit tricky.]

If my explanations don't help, maybe doing this experiment will show you

what I mean.

Regards, Martin.

P.S.: The solution is simple. If you change "drop#fg34htx" to

"drop:fg34htx", then you actually match the URI production and no longer

have a fragment id.

>> On May 19, 2020 at 5:40 AM "Henry S. Thompson" < [e-mail]

>> <mailto: [e-mail]>> 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/" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">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: [phone], e-mail: [e-mail] <mailto: [e-mail]>

>> URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">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

>> [e-mail] <mailto: [e-mail]>

>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

_______________________________________________

Uri-review mailing list

[e-mail]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

--

Prof. Dr.sc. Martin J. Dürst

Department of Intelligent Information Technology

College of Science and Engineering

Aoyama Gakuin University

Fuchinobe 5-1-10, Chuo-ku, Sagamihara

252-5258 Japan