12823 2011-05-30 18:28:17 +0000 Host component analyzed in a URI scheme without host 2015-08-23 07:07:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML Checker General unspecified All All RESOLVED WORKSFORME http://piratery.net/temp/ed2k-link.xhtml P2 normal --- 1 jerome.vuarand mike julian.reschke www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 48928 0 jerome.vuarand 2011-05-30 18:28:17 +0000 The "ed2k" URI scheme has no host component (which is only natural for resources found in a peer-to-peer network). The HTML5 validator is giving errors for these URIs, which are valid. The section "1.2.3 Hierarchical Identifiers" of the RFC 3986 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax" specifies: For some URI schemes, the visible hierarchy is limited to the scheme itself: everything after the scheme component delimiter (":") is considered opaque to URI processing. That should be the case for the "ed2k" scheme. For an example of page giving an unexpected error, you can try to validate that document: http://piratery.net/temp/ed2k-link.xhtml 48947 1 julian.reschke 2011-05-31 07:56:18 +0000 I believe the warning is correct. Check the RFC 3986 grammar. In ed2k://|file|empty.txt|0|31D6CFE0D16AE931B73C59D7E0C089C0|/ everything after the scheme parses as "authority" component. Lesson: don't use "//" at the beginning of the scheme-specific part unless it indeed starts the authority component. 48948 2 mike 2011-05-31 08:15:45 +0000 (Following up on comment #1) > ed2k://|file|empty.txt|0|31D6CFE0D16AE931B73C59D7E0C089C0|/ > > everything after the scheme parses as "authority" component. > > Lesson: don't use "//" at the beginning of the scheme-specific part unless it > indeed starts the authority component. So to be clear, it seems the that URI actually intentionally doesn't have an authority component. And the prose of RFC 3986 says: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3 When authority is not present, the path cannot begin with two slash characters ("//"). So the problem is that the ed2k URI syntax doesn't conform to RFC 3986. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed2k_URI_scheme Given that, moving this bug to resolved=worksforme because the validator is behaving as expected for this case. If you still believe otherwise, please reopen it and add a comment explaining why. 48979 3 jerome.vuarand 2011-05-31 20:46:13 +0000 Yes, you are both right, I misinterpreted RFC 3986. This is a bit annoying given that the ed2k scheme is never going to be fixed given its nature, but I guess I'll have to live with it and have non-conforming webpages.