On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:20:57AM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You didn't answer my first question about what we actually mean - do
> we mean the "URI"
"The uri type represents a Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI) as defined by STD 66. [...]"
STD 66 resolves to RFC 3986. Maybe I do not understand your question.
> I agree with you re the problem with pattern in this case.
>
> The simplest pattern would be:
>
> pattern "[a-z][a-z0-9+.-]*:.*"; // matches the mandatory scheme
>
> but I think you will say that either we have a complete correct
> pattern, or no pattern at all ;-)
I personally do not believe that a pattern needs to catch every
nuance. The only requirement is that a pattern must not reject any
valid values. For me, the description ultimately defines the type and
a pattern merely helps to catch some of the syntactic details in an
automated fashion.
My experience is that people have different ideas about how many
details a pattern should capture and hence pattern have a tendency to
grow increasingly complex over time.
I am happy to add the proposed pattern since covering the scheme part
is apparently better than having nothing (but I am sure this will be
the beginning of a journey and not its end).
/js
--
Jürgen Schönwälder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
