On 11/18/2014 06:05 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Forwarding.
Fixed. Thanks!
http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html#scheme
Let me know if you spot anything more.
I didn't file a bug because that appears to be against Anne's document, and I
didn't want to cause more confusion.
Not a problem. By the way, the WHATWG URL Standard is now jointly
edited. See:
https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#acknowledgments
Cheers,
- Sam Ruby
Begin forwarded message:
Date: 18 November 2014 10:50:19 pm AEDT
From: Sam Ruby <[email protected]>
To: Mark Nottingham <[email protected]>
Cc: Larry Masinter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: URL status?
On 11/18/2014 03:04 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Hey Sam,
On 13 Nov 2014, at 12:55 pm, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote:
Since you have last looked at it, I've done a lot of work to make
the syntax diagrams even more readable and more consistent with RFC
3986:
http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html#parsing-rules
If I can do more to make this document more consistent with RFC3986
and / or the proposed registry, don't hesitate to let me know.
The most obvious difference --
<http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html#scheme> doesn't
allow digits in schemes, whereas 3986 does (except as the first
character). Also, you allow "-" "+" and "." as the first character,
whereas 3986 doesn't.
Can I get you to open a bug in bugzilla? There is a link at the
top of the document which will help you do that. Either that or simply
make this comment public someplace -- I care not where, forwarding this
email to www-archive will serve my purposes.
Cheers,
-- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Sam Ruby
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
