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

Bug 2755 - wd-29: URI changes in RFC 3986
Summary: wd-29: URI changes in RFC 3986
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: needsAgreement
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-01-20 21:41 UTC by Mary Holstege
Modified: 2006-09-21 00:00 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Mary Holstege 2006-01-20 21:41:47 UTC
I would ask that the schema working group decide how or whether to upgrade the 
anyURI data type in schemas 1.1 to support the new syntax of RFC 3986. It's 
mostly but not quite the same as the older syntax in RFC 2396. For instance RFC 
2396 allows an indefinite number of colons and @ signs in registry names, while 
3986 does not. For instance, this URI is legal according to 2396 but not 3986:

dcp.tcp.pft://192.168.0.1:1002:3002?fec=1&crc=0

This has recently been raised as an issue in Xerces-J's schema validation. See

http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1060

There may be other incompatibilities as well.
Proposal concerning
Part 2
anyURI

Transition history
raised on 9 Apr 2005 by Elliotte Rusty Harold (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2005AprJun/0002.html)
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-21 00:00:31 UTC
At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg,
the Working Group decided not to take further action on this
issue in XML Schema 1.1.  (This issue was not discussed
separately; it was one of those which were dispatched by a
blanket decision that all other open issues would be closed
without action, unless raised again in last-call comments.)  Some
members of the Working Group expressed regret over not being able
to resolve all the issues dealt with in this way, but on the
whole the Working Group felt it better not to delay Datatypes 1.1
in order to resolve all of them.

This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED /WONTFIX at that
time, but apparently was not.  I am marking it that way now, to
reduce confusion.