Re: PATH_INFO spec (with regard to ";")

[James Tucker <jftucker@gmail.com>]

On 14 Dec 2009, at 00:44, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> El Domingo, 13 de Diciembre de 2009, James Tucker escribió:
>> "Wrong" is hard to define with archaic protocol specifications that do not
>> match "common" usage patterns
> 
> I've re-checked URI/HTTP grammar and the following URI (containing semicolon) 
> is valid for me (perhaps I'm wrong):
> 
>  /auid/global/mydoc.xml/~~/ruleset/rule%5b@id=%22sip:dom.org;p=abc%22%5d

This appears to be legal according the aggregate grammars in Appendix A of both 2396 and 3986. I don't have time to track down all of the relevant HTTP and CGI rfcs right now, but bug me later and I'll check those too.

> So, why do you say "archaic protocol specifications that do not match 'common' 
> usage patterns"?

Things change, indeed between 2396 and 3986 there were quite some changes to the way segments are split in URIs, however, it does not affect this particular issue.

> I expect that HTTP is not just for web servers.

No comment.

> But as I said I could be wrong. Please if you (or someone) can verify me that 
> the semicolon is invalid according to URI/HTTP BNF grammar, then I would 
> accept it.

According to the URI grammars in RFCs 2396 and 3986 it's fine. As I said above, I have not checked the HTTP and CGI grammars, which may well be different / more restrictive.

> 
> Regards.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>