Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

I don’t understand your question.   The URL syntax is fixed by that RFC.
I don’t know what you mean by “safe” or “valid”.

If by “valid” you mean “allowed by RFC 3986”, the answer is that they may only appear in a URL literally
if they have the exact meaning in the RFC, otherwise they must be pct-encoded.


From: Uri-review <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Timothy Mcsweeney
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:05 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

Hi Dave,

If the other six gen-delims from the reserved set were safe and valid, would you oppose their use in URIs?

Tim



On May 24, 2020 at 6:08 PM Dave Thaler <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Tim,



Correct the colon is not part of the hier-part, the hier-part is what comes after the colon.  RFC 3986 says:



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



Only strings that conform to the above are URIs.

So “drop#sd54g54” is not a URI because it does not conform to the above syntax, as it has no “:”



“drop:sd54g54” on the other hand would be a valid URI.



This is what folks are saying when they say if you just change the “#” to a “:” in your draft then it becomes legal.



Dave



From: Uri-review <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Timothy Mcsweeney
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 11:26 AM
To: Erik Wilde <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review



Hi Erik,



Thank you, I will have another look at my reference to section 3.

Would you agree that in "https://ietf.org<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7C407eddacd9164df8c19008d8029acfdc%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637262211228732272&sdata=hRl4tqp8fQTh3vm8oKqKKaT46gpSNMaqlaaHMQyyNCw%3D&reserved=0>" the colon is not part of the hier-part?

On May 24, 2020 at 12:02 PM Erik Wilde < [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:





hey tim.



On 2020-05-24 17:53, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:

Yes, I agree and understand that the same way as you.   But when the "#"

leaves the client it is not leaving as a fragment,

what people are telling you is that "#" and anything following it never

leaves the client, by definition..



it is leaving as a

way to separate the URI components, <scheme> and <path> or for http it

would be separating <scheme> and <authority>.  It is this that makes me

believe that even if the colon is required for http resolution, it is

not necessarily required for all URI.

this discussion could be more productive if you had a brief look at the

specs you're depending on. the very first rule shown in

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf..org%2Fhtml%2Frfc3986%23section-3&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7C407eddacd9164df8c19008d8029acfdc%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637262211228742266&sdata=h0%2BaDkiOSzl1hHEY4vjvonwwHm5wkcImPM8wI6SzIV0%3D&reserved=0> is



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



each URI is defined like this and must have a colon.



cheers,



dret.



--

erik wilde | mailto: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> |

| http://dret.net/netdret<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdret.net%2Fnetdret&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7C407eddacd9164df8c19008d8029acfdc%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637262211228742266&sdata=xjkJbeNSR0IPL%2Fbd%2B3qDJycm9ERRqkzIRvfVOgtWwYE%3D&reserved=0> |

| http://twitter.com/dret<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdret&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7C407eddacd9164df8c19008d8029acfdc%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637262211228752260&sdata=%2FPnQoAemPogqzFtXr4lvL7EvVBUNHJKkNOVvZcf5GkQ%3D&reserved=0> |