This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
"http://" seems to be a valid URI as far as I can tell. The RFC says that the authority can be absend and the path can be empty in the following: URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty ... The scheme and path components are required, though the path may be empty (no characters). When authority is present, the path must either be empty or begin with a slash ("/") character. When authority is not present, the path cannot begin with two slash characters ("//"). These restrictions result in five different ABNF rules for a path (Section 3.3), only one of which will match any given URI reference. And my URI library actually accepts it. I'm not an expert here, though... Any feedback would be appreciated. - Jerome
I believe that your argument for the validity of http:// is based on RFC 2396. RFC 3986 differs, requiring that host be specified: URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty / path-absolute / path-rootless / path-empty authority = [ userinfo "@" ] host [ ":" port ] host = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name So, what we need a URI that bith RFCs agree is invalid.
How about: http//
Jerome: Made the URI invalid by removing the ":", please close the bug if in agreement and able to verify. Carmelo