Opened 9 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#48 closed defect (fixed)

Can schemes set specific length limits? Should RFC4395bis say something about this?

Reported by: duerst@… Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: 4395bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description (last modified by ted.ietf@…)

This issue results from a split of issue #37.
The question is whether URI/IRI schemes can set specific length limits, and whether RFC4395 should say anything about it.

This seems to be implicitly true, because schemes can define scheme-specific syntax within the general URI/IRI syntax, and therewith can set length limits.

There seem to be some silly things that scheme definitions should not do, such as e.g. restricting path segments (<isegment>) to a specific length even if the underlying protocol for which the scheme is defined and its implementations do not have such a limitaiton. But such silliness seems quite obvious, and may not need to be called out specifically.

To fix this, the document will be updated to say that length limits in syntax should be expressed in terms of numbers of unicode code points permitted, rather than in terms of octets. Now in document working copy; will be pushed with next update.

Change History (1)

comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by ted.ietf@…

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.