"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> reserved= gen-delims / sub-delims
> gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@"
> sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
> / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="
> unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
>
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> I think that we should accept all the above characters (reserved and
> unreserved) and the percent character (since it is the escape
> character) as part of a URL.
Check.
> I don't know whether we should try to extract components of the URL,
> but if we do, perhaps we
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> I'll read this RFC closely and follow up later today.
For anyone not clear on what a URI is compared to a URL, every URL
is also a URI (but not the other way around):
A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both.
The term "Uniform Resource Locator
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We'd probably not want to apply this as-is, but should first
>>> tighten up what characters URLPath allows, per Kevin's spec
>>> research.
>
>> If we're headed that way, I figured I should double-check. The
>> RFC I referenced
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We'd probably not want to apply this as-is, but should first
>> tighten up what characters URLPath allows, per Kevin's spec
>> research.
> If we're headed that way, I figured I should double-check. The RFC
> I referenced was later obsoleted by:
> h
Tom Lane wrote:
> We'd probably not want to apply this as-is, but should first
> tighten up what characters URLPath allows, per Kevin's spec
> research.
If we're headed that way, I figured I should double-check. The RFC
I referenced was later obsoleted by:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.tx
