On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:41:16AM +0100, Benoît Knecht
<benoit.kne...@fsfe.org> wrote:
> Well, that's not entirely accurate. According to RFC 1738 [1], section
> 2.1:
*sigh*, know your rfcs: Your rfc 1738 is obsolete for well over a decade
now.
Let's jump to rfc3986 from 2005, which defines that part of the syntax:
Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters beginning with a
letter and followed by any combination of letters, digits, plus ("+"),
period ("."), or hyphen ("-"). Although schemes are case- insensitive,
the canonical form is lowercase and documents that specify schemes must
do so with lowercase letters.
You can read the whole RFC, scheme names *really* are case-insensitive.
> So torrent files using "Http" are actually invalid (and I've never
When bittorrent was invented, that part of the rfc had long been superseded
by rfc2396.
> but that's a "should", not a "must". So I'm downgrading the severity to
Know your rfcs: "SHOULD" has a meaning, and not the meaning you think it
has:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may
exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular
item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully
weighed before choosing a different course.
There is no valid reason to ignore the rfc and not implement uri syntax
properly that would even *remotely* outweigh the inconvenience of parsing
the scheme as per rfc.
It is quite obvious that you didn't carefully understand the implications
or weighed it against the effort of fixing the bug. But thats what
"SHOULD" means in an RFC.
Confusing "should" with "I can just ignore this" is common on the
internets (which is why there is now an RFC to define these terms), but
that doesn't make it right.
> "minor", and I'd suggest the maintainer closes it as "wontfix".
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt
It shouldn't be that 13 years after it has been superseded you still quote
from that rfc, especially not to ignore valid bug reports. You are wasting
mine and your time with this that could have been used to improve debian.
Next time, maybe check wikipedia - wikipedia both gets the
case-insentiveness right, AND tells you that your rfc has been superseded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme
Or, for utmost professionality, you can check the rfc online using the
ietf tools server:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738
Which tells you this:
Obsoleted by: 4248, 4266 PROPOSED STANDARD
Updated by: 1808, 2368, 2396, 3986, 6196, 6270 Errata Exist
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
