Talk:URL parser: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 14:36, 26 July 2015

= LDAP URL non-conformant

Great task! The example URLs provide good coverage, but the example ldap://[2001:db8::7]/c=GB?objectClass=one&objectClass=two is invalid per RFC2255. For solutions exercising library code that knows about more URL structures than HTTP, this is distracting. I suggest replacing it with the example in RFC3986: ldap://[2001:db8::7]/c=GB?objectClass?one which is just as parseable under HTTP rules, but won't blow up a parser that understands the ldap scheme.

--Aspectcl (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That matches my reading of rfc2255 also. I'd say go for it (and mark the existing tasks with a task description updated tag). --Rdm (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:59, 24 July 2015 (view source) rosettacode>Aspectcl (ldap:// example should be changed?)		Revision as of 14:36, 26 July 2015 (view source) Rdm (talk \| contribs) (→‎= LDAP URL non-conformant) Newer edit →
Line 4:		Line 4:

	--[[User:Aspectcl\|Aspectcl]] ([[User talk:Aspectcl\|talk]]) 03:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)		--[[User:Aspectcl\|Aspectcl]] ([[User talk:Aspectcl\|talk]]) 03:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

			: That matches my reading of rfc2255 also. I'd say go for it (and mark the existing tasks with a task description updated tag). --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 14:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)