Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

[Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]>]

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" < [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/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">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]

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

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