Talk:URL parser: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
--[[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 |
: That matches my reading of rfc2255 also. I'd say go for it (and mark the existing implementations with a task description updated tag). --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 14:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC) |
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.