IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> MOD - Issue 1.10 URI case - proposed new tex

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> MOD - Issue 1.10 URI case - proposed new tex

Re: IPP> MOD - Issue 1.10 URI case - proposed new tex

Carl Kugler (kugler@us.ibm.com)
12 Oct 1998 18:55:13 -0000

>Although most other IPP attribute syntax types allow for only
> lower-cased values, this syntax conforms to the case-sensitive and
> case-insensitive rules specified in [RFC2396].

There are some additional rules for URI comparison in [RFC2068] (beyond those in [RFC2396]) that are relevant here, since we are using HTTP/1.1 as a transport layer:

3.2.3 URI Comparison
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
URIs, with these exceptions:
o A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the default
port for that URI;
o Comparisons of host names MUST be case-insensitive;
o Comparisons of scheme names MUST be case-insensitive;
o An empty abs_path is equivalent to an abs_path of "/".
Characters other than those in the "reserved" and "unsafe" sets (see
section 3.2) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX" encodings.
For example, the following three URIs are equivalent:
http://abc.com:80/~smith/home.html
http://ABC.com/%7Esmith/home.html
http://ABC.com:/%7esmith/home.html

Might want to cite that spec, too.

-Carl

-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=4609

--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/