• To: "'Bob Foster'" <bob@o...>,"'Joe Fawcett'" <joefawcett@h...>
• Subject: RE: Can anyURI be empty?
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:47:13 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <4073677A.2090606@o...>
• Thread-index: AcQcSEvosxTS1JKtRCWqMTd9aomNJwAPEY7g

> If it couldn't, it would be wrong. An empty string is a valid URI.

On this, like so many other things, RFC 2396 is a total disaster. An empty
string is not valid according to the BNF syntax, but the RFC gives detailed
semantics for what it means (detailed semantics, though very imprecise
semantics).

And the schema REC doesn't help. It has the famous note saying that the
definition places "only very modest obligations" on an implementation, and
it doesn't say what those obligations are.

Michael Kay

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Can anyURI be empty?
    • From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Can anyURI be empty?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
• Next by Date: RE: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
• Previous by thread: Re: Can anyURI be empty?
• Next by thread: RE: Can anyURI be empty?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread