A WWW URI will work exactly as before. It doesn't change anything except for
testing to see if it's a URL with the required 'URL:' pre-prefix.
Is there ever to be a reconciliation between WWW URIs and IETF URIs?
> >in scan() I added these two lines just before the line
> >after_access = name;:
> >
> > if(!strncmp(name,"URL:",4))
> > name=name+4;
> >
> >This takes care of the current URL spec that requires URL: in front of
> >a URL. Normal WWW URLs still work normally.
>
> Blech. Hack. Barf. Who writes HREF="URL:..."? Why?
According to the current IETF URL draft a URL should be prefixed by
a 4 characters identifier so you know you have a URL as opposed to a
URN or LIFN or whatever.
> >This fixes the apparent small bug that causes URN:bla:bla: to get fouled up.
>
> Why is this a bug? That code is written to the URI spec, and per
> the URI spec, URN:blah:blah: is garbage.
Why is URN:bla:bla:bla garbage? It fits the WWW definition of
scheme:path just fine. The only small problem is that, according to the
BNF, _path_ is an xpalpha which cannot include ':' since ':' is part of
reserved. ':' is also the only element of reserved that is not used
anywhere else. I _could_ escape the other colons but I would rather not.
I know of no URL that will break if that small change is made. I know that
in itself not a good enough reason to do it but if it makes WWW and the
current IETF proposals compliant then it buys us something, right?
> Change the URN syntax, not the HTParse() code.
I'm trying to make sure that it won't matter either way.
-MM
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html"> <ADDRESS>Michael Mealling</ADDRESS> <ADDRESS>[email protected]</ADDRESS></A>