The 'uri' attribute syntax is any valid Uniform Resource Identifier or =
URI
[RFC2396]. Most often, URIs are simply Uniform Resource Locators or =
URLs.
The maximum length of URIs used as values of IPP attributes is 1023 =
octets.
Although most other IPP attribute syntax types allow for only =
lower-cased
values, this attribute syntax type conforms to the case-sensitive and
case-insensitive rules specified in [RFC2396].
Is that reference sufficient?
The Implementer's Guide doesn't talk about URI comparison. Should it? =
=20
Would it need to reference the HTTP specification as you did?
Tom
>-----Original Message-----
>From: kugler@us.ibm.com [mailto:kugler@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 08:11
>To: ipp@pwg.org
>Subject: Re: IPP> About uri
>
>
>
>
>Yan Gao wrote:
>Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=3D5223
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> I did not found out in the IPP1.0 protocal whether uri should be
>> case-sensitive or case-insensicive.
>> Could anybody tell me please?
>>
>> Yan Gao
>> gaoyan@excite.co.jp
>>
>
>Part of it is case sensitive and part is case insensitive. From
>draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-06:
>
>3.2.3 URI Comparison
>When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a=20
>client SHOULD use
>a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire URIs,=20
>with these
>exceptions:
>
> =B7 A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the=20
>default port
> for that URI-reference;
> =B7 Comparisons of host names MUST be case-insensitive;
> =B7 Comparisons of scheme names MUST be case-insensitive;
> =B7 An empty abs_path is equivalent to an abs_path of =93/=94.
>Characters other than those in the =93reserved=94 and =93unsafe=94 =
sets (see
>section 3.2) are equivalent to their =93"%" HEX HEX=94 encoding.
>
>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
>
>
>