Subject: Re: [BXXPwg] SOAP over BEEP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:19:53 -0700

> I am perfectly willing to believe that things would break. 
> 
> I had thought that "beep:soap://example.com/" to be valid 
> construction of a URL per 1738, is this not the case?

It looks to me that "beep:soap://example.com" is only sorta parsable by the 
bnf given in section 5 of 1738. It seems it would parse to a <genericurl> with 
a <scheme> of "beep" and an implicitly opaque <schemepart> that is just a 
string of "xchar" (because "soap://example.com" isn't parseable using the 
<ip-schemepart> production.

In anycase, 1738 is "updated" by 2396. 

Given 2396's bnf (appendix A), it appears that the above URI would parse to an 
<absoluteURI> with a <scheme> of "beep" and an <opaque_part> of 
"soap://example.com".

I presume that the opaque_part production is a more-or-less explicit 
"placeholder" to allow for future scheme-specific URI syntax definitions. So 
one could presumably define a bnf that "plugs in to" the <opaque_part> 
production and would parse "soap://example.com"-like stuff (that appears after 
the "scheme:" in the URI), but it doesn't seem to be presently defined (unless 
there's some more-recent-than-rfc2396 doc that specifies such).

But this is diving into URIs per se, and is perhaps more appropriate for the 
[email-masked] list (tho one might argue that this entire thread has been ovarall 
appropriate for that list -- this is stuff we need to get figgered out in 
general, these questions are just going to keep coming up, they aren't going 
to go away by themselves).

JeffH

_______________________________________________
BXXPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg

---

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:36:43 -0700

> to go away by themselves).

my take from the past history of the uri mailing list is that the topic
comes up from time to time, but there hasn't been a resolution. am i wrong?

/mtr

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:09:32 -0700

> production and would parse "soap://example.com"-like stuff (that appears
> after the "scheme:" in the URI), but it doesn't seem to be presently defined
> (unless there's some more-recent-than-rfc2396 doc that specifies such).

It exists to support schemes that, for one (lame) reason or another, were
defined with a syntax that does not allow relative forms.  While the RFC
allows such schemes, the implication of using them is that you don't
want anyone to reuse code that already exists to parse the components
of a URI in a common way.  For some schemes, that is actually appropriate.

Another way to think about it, or at least another point to consider, is
that stubborn software developers like me often refuse to implement URI
schemes that are designed to make our lives harder than they need to be.
A good software architect will take that into consideration when designing
a new application protocol.

....Roy