> The way I read http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html > section 3.3 > > I don't believe the path segment can legally end with a '/'. > Read the RFC and see what you think. > > So I don't believe http://www.google.com:80/?action=xyz > strictly speaking is valid, should we optionally allow for it > probably. > > http://www.google.com:80?action would be valid > http://www.google.com:80/path?action would be valid > >
Two points of note to my mind: Quoting Section 3.2 of RFC: The authority component is preceded by a double slash "//" and is terminated by the next slash "/", question-mark "?", or by the end of the URI. There's nothing wrong with the server name (ie. authority) being terminated with a slash as in http://www.google.com:80/?action=xyz since this merely translates as having no path component in the URI, rather than the path being "/" or is the path intended to start with the "/"? In any event, section B, starts with some examples, including: http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/#Related which is very similar to path/?xxxx and implies that the path component can indeed end with a "/" and I _believe_ but haven't actually tested that the regular expression a few lines above: ^(([^:/?#]+):)?(//([^/?#]*))?([^?#]*)(\?([^#]*))?(#(.*))? would pull out the relevant items from the URL of the form: http://www.google.com:80/path/?action and section C1 contains a list of "Normal Examples", one of which is: ?y = http://a/b/c/?y I think that the URLs discussed would therefore be valid. Steve.
