It looks like issue JDK-8019345 < https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8019345> is a duplicate of issue JDK-6791060 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6791060>. Should one of those be closed?
Regarding the comment on JDK-8019345 about how the implementation differs from that required by RFC 3986, I am aware of two minor differences. 1. They added the IPvFuture rule. So a URI like "http://[v0.0]"; should be valid but currently it fails. 2. They added the path-empty rule. So a URI like "foo:" should be valid but currently it fails. Would someone be willing to update the issue with that additional information? I don't have an official contributor account so I can't add comments myself. This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
