Talk:URL parser: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 16:00, 21 July 2016 (view source) rosettacode>Sondra.kinsey (→‎hostname for arbitrary schemes: new section) ← Older edit		Revision as of 18:21, 21 July 2016 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger m (corrected section header identification tag (fence).) Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== LDAP URL non-conformant ==		== LDAP URL non-conformant ==

	Great task! The example URLs provide good coverage, but the example <tt> ldap://[2001:db8::7]/c=GB?objectClass=one&objectClass=two </tt> 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: <tt> ldap://[2001:db8::7]/c=GB?objectClass?one </tt> which is just as parseable under HTTP rules, but won't blow up a parser that understands the ldap scheme.		Great task! The example URLs provide good coverage, but the example <tt> ldap://[2001:db8::7]/c=GB?objectClass=one&objectClass=two </tt> 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: <tt> ldap://[2001:db8::7]/c=GB?objectClass?one </tt> which is just as parseable under HTTP rules, but won't blow up a parser that understands the ldap scheme.