On Apr 8, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
An issue has been raised with Xerces's schema validation of certain
kinds of URIs that appear to be legal in 2396 and illegal in 3986. See
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1060 for details.
Briefly it appears that an indefinite number of colon and @ characters
were allowed in reg-names in RFC 2396 and forbidden in RFC 3986.
This doesn't seem to be called out as a change in D2 of 3986.
For instance, dcp.tcp.pft://192.168.0.1:1002:3002?fec=1&crc=0 is legal
in 2396 and not in 3986.
Was this decision deliberate?
Yes
Or did it accidentally fall out of other changes made to the BNF
grammar? Or am I missing something obvious, and this URI is legal (or
illegal) in both RFCs?
No URI schemes were defined using the reg_name syntax of 2396,
and therefore it was removed.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
