Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com
Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:19:53 -0700

> I am perfectly willing to believe that things would break. 
> I had thought that "beep:soap://example.com/" to be valid 
> construction of a URL per 1738, is this not the case?

It looks to me that "beep:soap://example.com" is only sorta parsable by the 
bnf given in section 5 of 1738. It seems it would parse to a <genericurl> with 
a <scheme> of "beep" and an implicitly opaque <schemepart> that is just a 
string of "xchar" (because "soap://example.com" isn't parseable using the 
<ip-schemepart> production.

In anycase, 1738 is "updated" by 2396. 

Given 2396's bnf (appendix A), it appears that the above URI would parse to an 
<absoluteURI> with a <scheme> of "beep" and an <opaque_part> of 

I presume that the opaque_part production is a more-or-less explicit 
"placeholder" to allow for future scheme-specific URI syntax definitions. So 
one could presumably define a bnf that "plugs in to" the <opaque_part> 
production and would parse "soap://example.com"-like stuff (that appears after 
the "scheme:" in the URI), but it doesn't seem to be presently defined (unless 
there's some more-recent-than-rfc2396 doc that specifies such).

But this is diving into URIs per se, and is perhaps more appropriate for the 
uri@w3.org list (tho one might argue that this entire thread has been ovarall 
appropriate for that list -- this is stuff we need to get figgered out in 
general, these questions are just going to keep coming up, they aren't going 
to go away by themselves).