[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] updated proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF
Dave, The behavior of the xri-path-noscheme production isn't intended to limit relative-XRIs in the way that you are pointing out that it does. Do we want to put any constraints on relative-XRIs outside of those that arise in xri-path-absolute? Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 2:03 PM > To: Lindelsee, Mike ; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] updated proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF > > > Mike, > > Can you talk a little about the production for xri-path-noscheme. It's > only used in relative-XRI (via xri-path) and I understand that it's > intended to keep a relative XRI from looking like an absolute URI. We > wouldn't want to allow a relative XRI of http://www.epok.net, for > example. The way it's defined, though, doesn't seem right to me. If we > inline xri-subseg-nc-nx, we get > > xri-path-noscheme = ( "*" / "!" ) 1*xri-achar *( "/" xri-segment ) > > relative-XRI can only start with an absolute path, an empty path or an > xri-path-noscheme. A relative XRI, then, must start with either "/", > "*", "!" or have an empty path. That means something like "foo" or > "foo/bar" is not a legal relative XRI. Is that the intent? It > also means > the traditional way of fixing the first example - > "./http://www.epok.net" - is illegal. > > It's also odd that the first segment in a relative XRI is only allowed > to contain a single subsegment - "*foo*bar/baz" is also illegal. Was > there a reason for that? > > Dave
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]