This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
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
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.
(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.
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.