diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'lib/inets')
| -rw-r--r-- | lib/inets/doc/archive/rfc3986.txt | 3419 |
1 files changed, 3419 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/lib/inets/doc/archive/rfc3986.txt b/lib/inets/doc/archive/rfc3986.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..c56ed4eb70 --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/inets/doc/archive/rfc3986.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3419 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group T. Berners-Lee +Request for Comments: 3986 W3C/MIT +STD: 66 R. Fielding +Updates: 1738 Day Software +Obsoletes: 2732, 2396, 1808 L. Masinter +Category: Standards Track Adobe Systems + January 2005 + + + Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax + +Status of This Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). + +Abstract + + A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of + characters that identifies an abstract or physical resource. This + specification defines the generic URI syntax and a process for + resolving URI references that might be in relative form, along with + guidelines and security considerations for the use of URIs on the + Internet. The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all + valid URIs, allowing an implementation to parse the common components + of a URI reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements + of every possible identifier. This specification does not define a + generative grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual + specifications of each URI scheme. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 1.1. Overview of URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 1.1.1. Generic Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 1.1.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 1.1.3. URI, URL, and URN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 1.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 1.2.1. Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 1.2.2. Separating Identification from Interaction . . . 9 + 1.2.3. Hierarchical Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 1.3. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 2. Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 2.1. Percent-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 2.2. Reserved Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 2.3. Unreserved Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 2.4. When to Encode or Decode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 2.5. Identifying Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 3. Syntax Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 3.1. Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 3.2. Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 3.2.1. User Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 3.2.2. Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 3.2.3. Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 3.3. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 3.4. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 3.5. Fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 4. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 4.1. URI Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 4.2. Relative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 4.3. Absolute URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 4.4. Same-Document Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 4.5. Suffix Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 5. Reference Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 5.1. Establishing a Base URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 5.1.1. Base URI Embedded in Content . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 5.1.2. Base URI from the Encapsulating Entity . . . . . 29 + 5.1.3. Base URI from the Retrieval URI . . . . . . . . 30 + 5.1.4. Default Base URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 5.2. Relative Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 5.2.1. Pre-parse the Base URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 5.2.2. Transform References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 5.2.3. Merge Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 5.2.4. Remove Dot Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.3. Component Recomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 5.4. Reference Resolution Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 5.4.1. Normal Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 5.4.2. Abnormal Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + 6. Normalization and Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 + 6.1. Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 + 6.2. Comparison Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + 6.2.1. Simple String Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + 6.2.2. Syntax-Based Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 6.2.3. Scheme-Based Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 6.2.4. Protocol-Based Normalization . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7.1. Reliability and Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7.2. Malicious Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7.3. Back-End Transcoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 7.4. Rare IP Address Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 + 7.5. Sensitive Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 + 7.6. Semantic Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 + 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 + A. Collected ABNF for URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 + B. Parsing a URI Reference with a Regular Expression . . . . . . 50 + C. Delimiting a URI in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + D. Changes from RFC 2396 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 + D.1. Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 + D.2. Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 + Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 + Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +1. Introduction + + A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) provides a simple and extensible + means for identifying a resource. This specification of URI syntax + and semantics is derived from concepts introduced by the World Wide + Web global information initiative, whose use of these identifiers + dates from 1990 and is described in "Universal Resource Identifiers + in WWW" [RFC1630]. The syntax is designed to meet the + recommendations laid out in "Functional Recommendations for Internet + Resource Locators" [RFC1736] and "Functional Requirements for Uniform + Resource Names" [RFC1737]. + + This document obsoletes [RFC2396], which merged "Uniform Resource + Locators" [RFC1738] and "Relative Uniform Resource Locators" + [RFC1808] in order to define a single, generic syntax for all URIs. + It obsoletes [RFC2732], which introduced syntax for an IPv6 address. + It excludes portions of RFC 1738 that defined the specific syntax of + individual URI schemes; those portions will be updated as separate + documents. The process for registration of new URI schemes is + defined separately by [BCP35]. Advice for designers of new URI + schemes can be found in [RFC2718]. All significant changes from RFC + 2396 are noted in Appendix D. + + This specification uses the terms "character" and "coded character + set" in accordance with the definitions provided in [BCP19], and + "character encoding" in place of what [BCP19] refers to as a + "charset". + +1.1. Overview of URIs + + URIs are characterized as follows: + + Uniform + + Uniformity provides several benefits. It allows different types + of resource identifiers to be used in the same context, even when + the mechanisms used to access those resources may differ. It + allows uniform semantic interpretation of common syntactic + conventions across different types of resource identifiers. It + allows introduction of new types of resource identifiers without + interfering with the way that existing identifiers are used. It + allows the identifiers to be reused in many different contexts, + thus permitting new applications or protocols to leverage a pre- + existing, large, and widely used set of resource identifiers. + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + Resource + + This specification does not limit the scope of what might be a + resource; rather, the term "resource" is used in a general sense + for whatever might be identified by a URI. Familiar examples + include an electronic document, an image, a source of information + with a consistent purpose (e.g., "today's weather report for Los + Angeles"), a service (e.g., an HTTP-to-SMS gateway), and a + collection of other resources. A resource is not necessarily + accessible via the Internet; e.g., human beings, corporations, and + bound books in a library can also be resources. Likewise, + abstract concepts can be resources, such as the operators and + operands of a mathematical equation, the types of a relationship + (e.g., "parent" or "employee"), or numeric values (e.g., zero, + one, and infinity). + + Identifier + + An identifier embodies the information required to distinguish + what is being identified from all other things within its scope of + identification. Our use of the terms "identify" and "identifying" + refer to this purpose of distinguishing one resource from all + other resources, regardless of how that purpose is accomplished + (e.g., by name, address, or context). These terms should not be + mistaken as an assumption that an identifier defines or embodies + the identity of what is referenced, though that may be the case + for some identifiers. Nor should it be assumed that a system + using URIs will access the resource identified: in many cases, + URIs are used to denote resources without any intention that they + be accessed. Likewise, the "one" resource identified might not be + singular in nature (e.g., a resource might be a named set or a + mapping that varies over time). + + A URI is an identifier consisting of a sequence of characters + matching the syntax rule named <URI> in Section 3. It enables + uniform identification of resources via a separately defined + extensible set of naming schemes (Section 3.1). How that + identification is accomplished, assigned, or enabled is delegated to + each scheme specification. + + This specification does not place any limits on the nature of a + resource, the reasons why an application might seek to refer to a + resource, or the kinds of systems that might use URIs for the sake of + identifying resources. This specification does not require that a + URI persists in identifying the same resource over time, though that + is a common goal of all URI schemes. Nevertheless, nothing in this + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + specification prevents an application from limiting itself to + particular types of resources, or to a subset of URIs that maintains + characteristics desired by that application. + + URIs have a global scope and are interpreted consistently regardless + of context, though the result of that interpretation may be in + relation to the end-user's context. For example, "http://localhost/" + has the same interpretation for every user of that reference, even + though the network interface corresponding to "localhost" may be + different for each end-user: interpretation is independent of access. + However, an action made on the basis of that reference will take + place in relation to the end-user's context, which implies that an + action intended to refer to a globally unique thing must use a URI + that distinguishes that resource from all other things. URIs that + identify in relation to the end-user's local context should only be + used when the context itself is a defining aspect of the resource, + such as when an on-line help manual refers to a file on the end- + user's file system (e.g., "file:///etc/hosts"). + +1.1.1. Generic Syntax + + Each URI begins with a scheme name, as defined in Section 3.1, that + refers to a specification for assigning identifiers within that + scheme. As such, the URI syntax is a federated and extensible naming + system wherein each scheme's specification may further restrict the + syntax and semantics of identifiers using that scheme. + + This specification defines those elements of the URI syntax that are + required of all URI schemes or are common to many URI schemes. It + thus defines the syntax and semantics needed to implement a scheme- + independent parsing mechanism for URI references, by which the + scheme-dependent handling of a URI can be postponed until the + scheme-dependent semantics are needed. Likewise, protocols and data + formats that make use of URI references can refer to this + specification as a definition for the range of syntax allowed for all + URIs, including those schemes that have yet to be defined. This + decouples the evolution of identification schemes from the evolution + of protocols, data formats, and implementations that make use of + URIs. + + A parser of the generic URI syntax can parse any URI reference into + its major components. Once the scheme is determined, further + scheme-specific parsing can be performed on the components. In other + words, the URI generic syntax is a superset of the syntax of all URI + schemes. + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +1.1.2. Examples + + The following example URIs illustrate several URI schemes and + variations in their common syntax components: + + ftp://ftp.is.co.za/rfc/rfc1808.txt + + http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt + + ldap://[2001:db8::7]/c=GB?objectClass?one + + mailto:[email protected] + + news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix + + tel:+1-816-555-1212 + + telnet://192.0.2.16:80/ + + urn:oasis:names:specification:docbook:dtd:xml:4.1.2 + + +1.1.3. URI, URL, and URN + + A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both. The + term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs + that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of + locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism + (e.g., its network "location"). The term "Uniform Resource Name" + (URN) has been used historically to refer to both URIs under the + "urn" scheme [RFC2141], which are required to remain globally unique + and persistent even when the resource ceases to exist or becomes + unavailable, and to any other URI with the properties of a name. + + An individual scheme does not have to be classified as being just one + of "name" or "locator". Instances of URIs from any given scheme may + have the characteristics of names or locators or both, often + depending on the persistence and care in the assignment of + identifiers by the naming authority, rather than on any quality of + the scheme. Future specifications and related documentation should + use the general term "URI" rather than the more restrictive terms + "URL" and "URN" [RFC3305]. + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +1.2. Design Considerations + +1.2.1. Transcription + + The URI syntax has been designed with global transcription as one of + its main considerations. A URI is a sequence of characters from a + very limited set: the letters of the basic Latin alphabet, digits, + and a few special characters. A URI may be represented in a variety + of ways; e.g., ink on paper, pixels on a screen, or a sequence of + character encoding octets. The interpretation of a URI depends only + on the characters used and not on how those characters are + represented in a network protocol. + + The goal of transcription can be described by a simple scenario. + Imagine two colleagues, Sam and Kim, sitting in a pub at an + international conference and exchanging research ideas. Sam asks Kim + for a location to get more information, so Kim writes the URI for the + research site on a napkin. Upon returning home, Sam takes out the + napkin and types the URI into a computer, which then retrieves the + information to which Kim referred. + + There are several design considerations revealed by the scenario: + + o A URI is a sequence of characters that is not always represented + as a sequence of octets. + + o A URI might be transcribed from a non-network source and thus + should consist of characters that are most likely able to be + entered into a computer, within the constraints imposed by + keyboards (and related input devices) across languages and + locales. + + o A URI often has to be remembered by people, and it is easier for + people to remember a URI when it consists of meaningful or + familiar components. + + These design considerations are not always in alignment. For + example, it is often the case that the most meaningful name for a URI + component would require characters that cannot be typed into some + systems. The ability to transcribe a resource identifier from one + medium to another has been considered more important than having a + URI consist of the most meaningful of components. + + In local or regional contexts and with improving technology, users + might benefit from being able to use a wider range of characters; + such use is not defined by this specification. Percent-encoded + octets (Section 2.1) may be used within a URI to represent characters + outside the range of the US-ASCII coded character set if this + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + representation is allowed by the scheme or by the protocol element in + which the URI is referenced. Such a definition should specify the + character encoding used to map those characters to octets prior to + being percent-encoded for the URI. + +1.2.2. Separating Identification from Interaction + + A common misunderstanding of URIs is that they are only used to refer + to accessible resources. The URI itself only provides + identification; access to the resource is neither guaranteed nor + implied by the presence of a URI. Instead, any operation associated + with a URI reference is defined by the protocol element, data format + attribute, or natural language text in which it appears. + + Given a URI, a system may attempt to perform a variety of operations + on the resource, as might be characterized by words such as "access", + "update", "replace", or "find attributes". Such operations are + defined by the protocols that make use of URIs, not by this + specification. However, we do use a few general terms for describing + common operations on URIs. URI "resolution" is the process of + determining an access mechanism and the appropriate parameters + necessary to dereference a URI; this resolution may require several + iterations. To use that access mechanism to perform an action on the + URI's resource is to "dereference" the URI. + + When URIs are used within information retrieval systems to identify + sources of information, the most common form of URI dereference is + "retrieval": making use of a URI in order to retrieve a + representation of its associated resource. A "representation" is a + sequence of octets, along with representation metadata describing + those octets, that constitutes a record of the state of the resource + at the time when the representation is generated. Retrieval is + achieved by a process that might include using the URI as a cache key + to check for a locally cached representation, resolution of the URI + to determine an appropriate access mechanism (if any), and + dereference of the URI for the sake of applying a retrieval + operation. Depending on the protocols used to perform the retrieval, + additional information might be supplied about the resource (resource + metadata) and its relation to other resources. + + URI references in information retrieval systems are designed to be + late-binding: the result of an access is generally determined when it + is accessed and may vary over time or due to other aspects of the + interaction. These references are created in order to be used in the + future: what is being identified is not some specific result that was + obtained in the past, but rather some characteristic that is expected + to be true for future results. In such cases, the resource referred + to by the URI is actually a sameness of characteristics as observed + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + over time, perhaps elucidated by additional comments or assertions + made by the resource provider. + + Although many URI schemes are named after protocols, this does not + imply that use of these URIs will result in access to the resource + via the named protocol. URIs are often used simply for the sake of + identification. Even when a URI is used to retrieve a representation + of a resource, that access might be through gateways, proxies, + caches, and name resolution services that are independent of the + protocol associated with the scheme name. The resolution of some + URIs may require the use of more than one protocol (e.g., both DNS + and HTTP are typically used to access an "http" URI's origin server + when a representation isn't found in a local cache). + +1.2.3. Hierarchical Identifiers + + The URI syntax is organized hierarchically, with components listed in + order of decreasing significance from left to right. For some URI + schemes, the visible hierarchy is limited to the scheme itself: + everything after the scheme component delimiter (":") is considered + opaque to URI processing. Other URI schemes make the hierarchy + explicit and visible to generic parsing algorithms. + + The generic syntax uses the slash ("/"), question mark ("?"), and + number sign ("#") characters to delimit components that are + significant to the generic parser's hierarchical interpretation of an + identifier. In addition to aiding the readability of such + identifiers through the consistent use of familiar syntax, this + uniform representation of hierarchy across naming schemes allows + scheme-independent references to be made relative to that hierarchy. + + It is often the case that a group or "tree" of documents has been + constructed to serve a common purpose, wherein the vast majority of + URI references in these documents point to resources within the tree + rather than outside it. Similarly, documents located at a particular + site are much more likely to refer to other resources at that site + than to resources at remote sites. Relative referencing of URIs + allows document trees to be partially independent of their location + and access scheme. For instance, it is possible for a single set of + hypertext documents to be simultaneously accessible and traversable + via each of the "file", "http", and "ftp" schemes if the documents + refer to each other with relative references. Furthermore, such + document trees can be moved, as a whole, without changing any of the + relative references. + + A relative reference (Section 4.2) refers to a resource by describing + the difference within a hierarchical name space between the reference + context and the target URI. The reference resolution algorithm, + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + presented in Section 5, defines how such a reference is transformed + to the target URI. As relative references can only be used within + the context of a hierarchical URI, designers of new URI schemes + should use a syntax consistent with the generic syntax's hierarchical + components unless there are compelling reasons to forbid relative + referencing within that scheme. + + NOTE: Previous specifications used the terms "partial URI" and + "relative URI" to denote a relative reference to a URI. As some + readers misunderstood those terms to mean that relative URIs are a + subset of URIs rather than a method of referencing URIs, this + specification simply refers to them as relative references. + + All URI references are parsed by generic syntax parsers when used. + However, because hierarchical processing has no effect on an absolute + URI used in a reference unless it contains one or more dot-segments + (complete path segments of "." or "..", as described in Section 3.3), + URI scheme specifications can define opaque identifiers by + disallowing use of slash characters, question mark characters, and + the URIs "scheme:." and "scheme:..". + +1.3. Syntax Notation + + This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) + notation of [RFC2234], including the following core ABNF syntax rules + defined by that specification: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), + DIGIT (decimal digits), DQUOTE (double quote), HEXDIG (hexadecimal + digits), LF (line feed), and SP (space). The complete URI syntax is + collected in Appendix A. + +2. Characters + + The URI syntax provides a method of encoding data, presumably for the + sake of identifying a resource, as a sequence of characters. The URI + characters are, in turn, frequently encoded as octets for transport + or presentation. This specification does not mandate any particular + character encoding for mapping between URI characters and the octets + used to store or transmit those characters. When a URI appears in a + protocol element, the character encoding is defined by that protocol; + without such a definition, a URI is assumed to be in the same + character encoding as the surrounding text. + + The ABNF notation defines its terminal values to be non-negative + integers (codepoints) based on the US-ASCII coded character set + [ASCII]. Because a URI is a sequence of characters, we must invert + that relation in order to understand the URI syntax. Therefore, the + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + integer values used by the ABNF must be mapped back to their + corresponding characters via US-ASCII in order to complete the syntax + rules. + + A URI is composed from a limited set of characters consisting of + digits, letters, and a few graphic symbols. A reserved subset of + those characters may be used to delimit syntax components within a + URI while the remaining characters, including both the unreserved set + and those reserved characters not acting as delimiters, define each + component's identifying data. + +2.1. Percent-Encoding + + A percent-encoding mechanism is used to represent a data octet in a + component when that octet's corresponding character is outside the + allowed set or is being used as a delimiter of, or within, the + component. A percent-encoded octet is encoded as a character + triplet, consisting of the percent character "%" followed by the two + hexadecimal digits representing that octet's numeric value. For + example, "%20" is the percent-encoding for the binary octet + "00100000" (ABNF: %x20), which in US-ASCII corresponds to the space + character (SP). Section 2.4 describes when percent-encoding and + decoding is applied. + + pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG + + The uppercase hexadecimal digits 'A' through 'F' are equivalent to + the lowercase digits 'a' through 'f', respectively. If two URIs + differ only in the case of hexadecimal digits used in percent-encoded + octets, they are equivalent. For consistency, URI producers and + normalizers should use uppercase hexadecimal digits for all percent- + encodings. + +2.2. Reserved Characters + + URIs include components and subcomponents that are delimited by + characters in the "reserved" set. These characters are called + "reserved" because they may (or may not) be defined as delimiters by + the generic syntax, by each scheme-specific syntax, or by the + implementation-specific syntax of a URI's dereferencing algorithm. + If data for a URI component would conflict with a reserved + character's purpose as a delimiter, then the conflicting data must be + percent-encoded before the URI is formed. + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + reserved = gen-delims / sub-delims + + gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@" + + sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")" + / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "=" + + The purpose of reserved characters is to provide a set of delimiting + characters that are distinguishable from other data within a URI. + URIs that differ in the replacement of a reserved character with its + corresponding percent-encoded octet are not equivalent. Percent- + encoding a reserved character, or decoding a percent-encoded octet + that corresponds to a reserved character, will change how the URI is + interpreted by most applications. Thus, characters in the reserved + set are protected from normalization and are therefore safe to be + used by scheme-specific and producer-specific algorithms for + delimiting data subcomponents within a URI. + + A subset of the reserved characters (gen-delims) is used as + delimiters of the generic URI components described in Section 3. A + component's ABNF syntax rule will not use the reserved or gen-delims + rule names directly; instead, each syntax rule lists the characters + allowed within that component (i.e., not delimiting it), and any of + those characters that are also in the reserved set are "reserved" for + use as subcomponent delimiters within the component. Only the most + common subcomponents are defined by this specification; other + subcomponents may be defined by a URI scheme's specification, or by + the implementation-specific syntax of a URI's dereferencing + algorithm, provided that such subcomponents are delimited by + characters in the reserved set allowed within that component. + + URI producing applications should percent-encode data octets that + correspond to characters in the reserved set unless these characters + are specifically allowed by the URI scheme to represent data in that + component. If a reserved character is found in a URI component and + no delimiting role is known for that character, then it must be + interpreted as representing the data octet corresponding to that + character's encoding in US-ASCII. + +2.3. Unreserved Characters + + Characters that are allowed in a URI but do not have a reserved + purpose are called unreserved. These include uppercase and lowercase + letters, decimal digits, hyphen, period, underscore, and tilde. + + unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + URIs that differ in the replacement of an unreserved character with + its corresponding percent-encoded US-ASCII octet are equivalent: they + identify the same resource. However, URI comparison implementations + do not always perform normalization prior to comparison (see Section + 6). For consistency, percent-encoded octets in the ranges of ALPHA + (%41-%5A and %61-%7A), DIGIT (%30-%39), hyphen (%2D), period (%2E), + underscore (%5F), or tilde (%7E) should not be created by URI + producers and, when found in a URI, should be decoded to their + corresponding unreserved characters by URI normalizers. + +2.4. When to Encode or Decode + + Under normal circumstances, the only time when octets within a URI + are percent-encoded is during the process of producing the URI from + its component parts. This is when an implementation determines which + of the reserved characters are to be used as subcomponent delimiters + and which can be safely used as data. Once produced, a URI is always + in its percent-encoded form. + + When a URI is dereferenced, the components and subcomponents + significant to the scheme-specific dereferencing process (if any) + must be parsed and separated before the percent-encoded octets within + those components can be safely decoded, as otherwise the data may be + mistaken for component delimiters. The only exception is for + percent-encoded octets corresponding to characters in the unreserved + set, which can be decoded at any time. For example, the octet + corresponding to the tilde ("~") character is often encoded as "%7E" + by older URI processing implementations; the "%7E" can be replaced by + "~" without changing its interpretation. + + Because the percent ("%") character serves as the indicator for + percent-encoded octets, it must be percent-encoded as "%25" for that + octet to be used as data within a URI. Implementations must not + percent-encode or decode the same string more than once, as decoding + an already decoded string might lead to misinterpreting a percent + data octet as the beginning of a percent-encoding, or vice versa in + the case of percent-encoding an already percent-encoded string. + +2.5. Identifying Data + + URI characters provide identifying data for each of the URI + components, serving as an external interface for identification + between systems. Although the presence and nature of the URI + production interface is hidden from clients that use its URIs (and is + thus beyond the scope of the interoperability requirements defined by + this specification), it is a frequent source of confusion and errors + in the interpretation of URI character issues. Implementers have to + be aware that there are multiple character encodings involved in the + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + production and transmission of URIs: local name and data encoding, + public interface encoding, URI character encoding, data format + encoding, and protocol encoding. + + Local names, such as file system names, are stored with a local + character encoding. URI producing applications (e.g., origin + servers) will typically use the local encoding as the basis for + producing meaningful names. The URI producer will transform the + local encoding to one that is suitable for a public interface and + then transform the public interface encoding into the restricted set + of URI characters (reserved, unreserved, and percent-encodings). + Those characters are, in turn, encoded as octets to be used as a + reference within a data format (e.g., a document charset), and such + data formats are often subsequently encoded for transmission over + Internet protocols. + + For most systems, an unreserved character appearing within a URI + component is interpreted as representing the data octet corresponding + to that character's encoding in US-ASCII. Consumers of URIs assume + that the letter "X" corresponds to the octet "01011000", and even + when that assumption is incorrect, there is no harm in making it. A + system that internally provides identifiers in the form of a + different character encoding, such as EBCDIC, will generally perform + character translation of textual identifiers to UTF-8 [STD63] (or + some other superset of the US-ASCII character encoding) at an + internal interface, thereby providing more meaningful identifiers + than those resulting from simply percent-encoding the original + octets. + + For example, consider an information service that provides data, + stored locally using an EBCDIC-based file system, to clients on the + Internet through an HTTP server. When an author creates a file with + the name "Laguna Beach" on that file system, the "http" URI + corresponding to that resource is expected to contain the meaningful + string "Laguna%20Beach". If, however, that server produces URIs by + using an overly simplistic raw octet mapping, then the result would + be a URI containing "%D3%81%87%A4%95%81@%C2%85%81%83%88". An + internal transcoding interface fixes this problem by transcoding the + local name to a superset of US-ASCII prior to producing the URI. + Naturally, proper interpretation of an incoming URI on such an + interface requires that percent-encoded octets be decoded (e.g., + "%20" to SP) before the reverse transcoding is applied to obtain the + local name. + + In some cases, the internal interface between a URI component and the + identifying data that it has been crafted to represent is much less + direct than a character encoding translation. For example, portions + of a URI might reflect a query on non-ASCII data, or numeric + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + coordinates on a map. Likewise, a URI scheme may define components + with additional encoding requirements that are applied prior to + forming the component and producing the URI. + + When a new URI scheme defines a component that represents textual + data consisting of characters from the Universal Character Set [UCS], + the data should first be encoded as octets according to the UTF-8 + character encoding [STD63]; then only those octets that do not + correspond to characters in the unreserved set should be percent- + encoded. For example, the character A would be represented as "A", + the character LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH GRAVE would be represented + as "%C3%80", and the character KATAKANA LETTER A would be represented + as "%E3%82%A2". + +3. Syntax Components + + The generic URI syntax consists of a hierarchical sequence of + components referred to as the scheme, authority, path, query, and + fragment. + + URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] + + hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty + / path-absolute + / path-rootless + / path-empty + + The scheme and path components are required, though the path may be + empty (no characters). When authority is present, the path must + either be empty or begin with a slash ("/") character. When + authority is not present, the path cannot begin with two slash + characters ("//"). These restrictions result in five different ABNF + rules for a path (Section 3.3), only one of which will match any + given URI reference. + + The following are two example URIs and their component parts: + + foo://example.com:8042/over/there?name=ferret#nose + \_/ \______________/\_________/ \_________/ \__/ + | | | | | + scheme authority path query fragment + | _____________________|__ + / \ / \ + urn:example:animal:ferret:nose + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +3.1. Scheme + + Each URI begins with a scheme name that refers to a specification for + assigning identifiers within that scheme. As such, the URI syntax is + a federated and extensible naming system wherein each scheme's + specification may further restrict the syntax and semantics of + identifiers using that scheme. + + Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters beginning with a + letter and followed by any combination of letters, digits, plus + ("+"), period ("."), or hyphen ("-"). Although schemes are case- + insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and documents that + specify schemes must do so with lowercase letters. An implementation + should accept uppercase letters as equivalent to lowercase in scheme + names (e.g., allow "HTTP" as well as "http") for the sake of + robustness but should only produce lowercase scheme names for + consistency. + + scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." ) + + Individual schemes are not specified by this document. The process + for registration of new URI schemes is defined separately by [BCP35]. + The scheme registry maintains the mapping between scheme names and + their specifications. Advice for designers of new URI schemes can be + found in [RFC2718]. URI scheme specifications must define their own + syntax so that all strings matching their scheme-specific syntax will + also match the <absolute-URI> grammar, as described in Section 4.3. + + When presented with a URI that violates one or more scheme-specific + restrictions, the scheme-specific resolution process should flag the + reference as an error rather than ignore the unused parts; doing so + reduces the number of equivalent URIs and helps detect abuses of the + generic syntax, which might indicate that the URI has been + constructed to mislead the user (Section 7.6). + +3.2. Authority + + Many URI schemes include a hierarchical element for a naming + authority so that governance of the name space defined by the + remainder of the URI is delegated to that authority (which may, in + turn, delegate it further). The generic syntax provides a common + means for distinguishing an authority based on a registered name or + server address, along with optional port and user information. + + The authority component is preceded by a double slash ("//") and is + terminated by the next slash ("/"), question mark ("?"), or number + sign ("#") character, or by the end of the URI. + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + authority = [ userinfo "@" ] host [ ":" port ] + + URI producers and normalizers should omit the ":" delimiter that + separates host from port if the port component is empty. Some + schemes do not allow the userinfo and/or port subcomponents. + + If a URI contains an authority component, then the path component + must either be empty or begin with a slash ("/") character. Non- + validating parsers (those that merely separate a URI reference into + its major components) will often ignore the subcomponent structure of + authority, treating it as an opaque string from the double-slash to + the first terminating delimiter, until such time as the URI is + dereferenced. + +3.2.1. User Information + + The userinfo subcomponent may consist of a user name and, optionally, + scheme-specific information about how to gain authorization to access + the resource. The user information, if present, is followed by a + commercial at-sign ("@") that delimits it from the host. + + userinfo = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" ) + + Use of the format "user:password" in the userinfo field is + deprecated. Applications should not render as clear text any data + after the first colon (":") character found within a userinfo + subcomponent unless the data after the colon is the empty string + (indicating no password). Applications may choose to ignore or + reject such data when it is received as part of a reference and + should reject the storage of such data in unencrypted form. The + passing of authentication information in clear text has proven to be + a security risk in almost every case where it has been used. + + Applications that render a URI for the sake of user feedback, such as + in graphical hypertext browsing, should render userinfo in a way that + is distinguished from the rest of a URI, when feasible. Such + rendering will assist the user in cases where the userinfo has been + misleadingly crafted to look like a trusted domain name + (Section 7.6). + +3.2.2. Host + + The host subcomponent of authority is identified by an IP literal + encapsulated within square brackets, an IPv4 address in dotted- + decimal form, or a registered name. The host subcomponent is case- + insensitive. The presence of a host subcomponent within a URI does + not imply that the scheme requires access to the given host on the + Internet. In many cases, the host syntax is used only for the sake + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + of reusing the existing registration process created and deployed for + DNS, thus obtaining a globally unique name without the cost of + deploying another registry. However, such use comes with its own + costs: domain name ownership may change over time for reasons not + anticipated by the URI producer. In other cases, the data within the + host component identifies a registered name that has nothing to do + with an Internet host. We use the name "host" for the ABNF rule + because that is its most common purpose, not its only purpose. + + host = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name + + The syntax rule for host is ambiguous because it does not completely + distinguish between an IPv4address and a reg-name. In order to + disambiguate the syntax, we apply the "first-match-wins" algorithm: + If host matches the rule for IPv4address, then it should be + considered an IPv4 address literal and not a reg-name. Although host + is case-insensitive, producers and normalizers should use lowercase + for registered names and hexadecimal addresses for the sake of + uniformity, while only using uppercase letters for percent-encodings. + + A host identified by an Internet Protocol literal address, version 6 + [RFC3513] or later, is distinguished by enclosing the IP literal + within square brackets ("[" and "]"). This is the only place where + square bracket characters are allowed in the URI syntax. In + anticipation of future, as-yet-undefined IP literal address formats, + an implementation may use an optional version flag to indicate such a + format explicitly rather than rely on heuristic determination. + + IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]" + + IPvFuture = "v" 1*HEXDIG "." 1*( unreserved / sub-delims / ":" ) + + The version flag does not indicate the IP version; rather, it + indicates future versions of the literal format. As such, + implementations must not provide the version flag for the existing + IPv4 and IPv6 literal address forms described below. If a URI + containing an IP-literal that starts with "v" (case-insensitive), + indicating that the version flag is present, is dereferenced by an + application that does not know the meaning of that version flag, then + the application should return an appropriate error for "address + mechanism not supported". + + A host identified by an IPv6 literal address is represented inside + the square brackets without a preceding version flag. The ABNF + provided here is a translation of the text definition of an IPv6 + literal address provided in [RFC3513]. This syntax does not support + IPv6 scoped addressing zone identifiers. + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + A 128-bit IPv6 address is divided into eight 16-bit pieces. Each + piece is represented numerically in case-insensitive hexadecimal, + using one to four hexadecimal digits (leading zeroes are permitted). + The eight encoded pieces are given most-significant first, separated + by colon characters. Optionally, the least-significant two pieces + may instead be represented in IPv4 address textual format. A + sequence of one or more consecutive zero-valued 16-bit pieces within + the address may be elided, omitting all their digits and leaving + exactly two consecutive colons in their place to mark the elision. + + IPv6address = 6( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / "::" 5( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / [ h16 ] "::" 4( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / [ *1( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 3( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / [ *2( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 2( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / [ *3( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" h16 ":" ls32 + / [ *4( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" ls32 + / [ *5( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" h16 + / [ *6( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" + + ls32 = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address + ; least-significant 32 bits of address + + h16 = 1*4HEXDIG + ; 16 bits of address represented in hexadecimal + + A host identified by an IPv4 literal address is represented in + dotted-decimal notation (a sequence of four decimal numbers in the + range 0 to 255, separated by "."), as described in [RFC1123] by + reference to [RFC0952]. Note that other forms of dotted notation may + be interpreted on some platforms, as described in Section 7.4, but + only the dotted-decimal form of four octets is allowed by this + grammar. + + IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet + + dec-octet = DIGIT ; 0-9 + / %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99 + / "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199 + / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249 + / "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255 + + A host identified by a registered name is a sequence of characters + usually intended for lookup within a locally defined host or service + name registry, though the URI's scheme-specific semantics may require + that a specific registry (or fixed name table) be used instead. The + most common name registry mechanism is the Domain Name System (DNS). + A registered name intended for lookup in the DNS uses the syntax + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + defined in Section 3.5 of [RFC1034] and Section 2.1 of [RFC1123]. + Such a name consists of a sequence of domain labels separated by ".", + each domain label starting and ending with an alphanumeric character + and possibly also containing "-" characters. The rightmost domain + label of a fully qualified domain name in DNS may be followed by a + single "." and should be if it is necessary to distinguish between + the complete domain name and some local domain. + + reg-name = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims ) + + If the URI scheme defines a default for host, then that default + applies when the host subcomponent is undefined or when the + registered name is empty (zero length). For example, the "file" URI + scheme is defined so that no authority, an empty host, and + "localhost" all mean the end-user's machine, whereas the "http" + scheme considers a missing authority or empty host invalid. + + This specification does not mandate a particular registered name + lookup technology and therefore does not restrict the syntax of reg- + name beyond what is necessary for interoperability. Instead, it + delegates the issue of registered name syntax conformance to the + operating system of each application performing URI resolution, and + that operating system decides what it will allow for the purpose of + host identification. A URI resolution implementation might use DNS, + host tables, yellow pages, NetInfo, WINS, or any other system for + lookup of registered names. However, a globally scoped naming + system, such as DNS fully qualified domain names, is necessary for + URIs intended to have global scope. URI producers should use names + that conform to the DNS syntax, even when use of DNS is not + immediately apparent, and should limit these names to no more than + 255 characters in length. + + The reg-name syntax allows percent-encoded octets in order to + represent non-ASCII registered names in a uniform way that is + independent of the underlying name resolution technology. Non-ASCII + characters must first be encoded according to UTF-8 [STD63], and then + each octet of the corresponding UTF-8 sequence must be percent- + encoded to be represented as URI characters. URI producing + applications must not use percent-encoding in host unless it is used + to represent a UTF-8 character sequence. When a non-ASCII registered + name represents an internationalized domain name intended for + resolution via the DNS, the name must be transformed to the IDNA + encoding [RFC3490] prior to name lookup. URI producers should + provide these registered names in the IDNA encoding, rather than a + percent-encoding, if they wish to maximize interoperability with + legacy URI resolvers. + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +3.2.3. Port + + The port subcomponent of authority is designated by an optional port + number in decimal following the host and delimited from it by a + single colon (":") character. + + port = *DIGIT + + A scheme may define a default port. For example, the "http" scheme + defines a default port of "80", corresponding to its reserved TCP + port number. The type of port designated by the port number (e.g., + TCP, UDP, SCTP) is defined by the URI scheme. URI producers and + normalizers should omit the port component and its ":" delimiter if + port is empty or if its value would be the same as that of the + scheme's default. + +3.3. Path + + The path component contains data, usually organized in hierarchical + form, that, along with data in the non-hierarchical query component + (Section 3.4), serves to identify a resource within the scope of the + URI's scheme and naming authority (if any). The path is terminated + by the first question mark ("?") or number sign ("#") character, or + by the end of the URI. + + If a URI contains an authority component, then the path component + must either be empty or begin with a slash ("/") character. If a URI + does not contain an authority component, then the path cannot begin + with two slash characters ("//"). In addition, a URI reference + (Section 4.1) may be a relative-path reference, in which case the + first path segment cannot contain a colon (":") character. The ABNF + requires five separate rules to disambiguate these cases, only one of + which will match the path substring within a given URI reference. We + use the generic term "path component" to describe the URI substring + matched by the parser to one of these rules. + + path = path-abempty ; begins with "/" or is empty + / path-absolute ; begins with "/" but not "//" + / path-noscheme ; begins with a non-colon segment + / path-rootless ; begins with a segment + / path-empty ; zero characters + + path-abempty = *( "/" segment ) + path-absolute = "/" [ segment-nz *( "/" segment ) ] + path-noscheme = segment-nz-nc *( "/" segment ) + path-rootless = segment-nz *( "/" segment ) + path-empty = 0<pchar> + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + segment = *pchar + segment-nz = 1*pchar + segment-nz-nc = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / "@" ) + ; non-zero-length segment without any colon ":" + + pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@" + + A path consists of a sequence of path segments separated by a slash + ("/") character. A path is always defined for a URI, though the + defined path may be empty (zero length). Use of the slash character + to indicate hierarchy is only required when a URI will be used as the + context for relative references. For example, the URI + <mailto:[email protected]> has a path of "[email protected]", whereas + the URI <foo://info.example.com?fred> has an empty path. + + The path segments "." and "..", also known as dot-segments, are + defined for relative reference within the path name hierarchy. They + are intended for use at the beginning of a relative-path reference + (Section 4.2) to indicate relative position within the hierarchical + tree of names. This is similar to their role within some operating + systems' file directory structures to indicate the current directory + and parent directory, respectively. However, unlike in a file + system, these dot-segments are only interpreted within the URI path + hierarchy and are removed as part of the resolution process (Section + 5.2). + + Aside from dot-segments in hierarchical paths, a path segment is + considered opaque by the generic syntax. URI producing applications + often use the reserved characters allowed in a segment to delimit + scheme-specific or dereference-handler-specific subcomponents. For + example, the semicolon (";") and equals ("=") reserved characters are + often used to delimit parameters and parameter values applicable to + that segment. The comma (",") reserved character is often used for + similar purposes. For example, one URI producer might use a segment + such as "name;v=1.1" to indicate a reference to version 1.1 of + "name", whereas another might use a segment such as "name,1.1" to + indicate the same. Parameter types may be defined by scheme-specific + semantics, but in most cases the syntax of a parameter is specific to + the implementation of the URI's dereferencing algorithm. + +3.4. Query + + The query component contains non-hierarchical data that, along with + data in the path component (Section 3.3), serves to identify a + resource within the scope of the URI's scheme and naming authority + (if any). The query component is indicated by the first question + mark ("?") character and terminated by a number sign ("#") character + or by the end of the URI. + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + query = *( pchar / "/" / "?" ) + + The characters slash ("/") and question mark ("?") may represent data + within the query component. Beware that some older, erroneous + implementations may not handle such data correctly when it is used as + the base URI for relative references (Section 5.1), apparently + because they fail to distinguish query data from path data when + looking for hierarchical separators. However, as query components + are often used to carry identifying information in the form of + "key=value" pairs and one frequently used value is a reference to + another URI, it is sometimes better for usability to avoid percent- + encoding those characters. + +3.5. Fragment + + The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect + identification of a secondary resource by reference to a primary + resource and additional identifying information. The identified + secondary resource may be some portion or subset of the primary + resource, some view on representations of the primary resource, or + some other resource defined or described by those representations. A + fragment identifier component is indicated by the presence of a + number sign ("#") character and terminated by the end of the URI. + + fragment = *( pchar / "/" / "?" ) + + The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of + representations that might result from a retrieval action on the + primary resource. The fragment's format and resolution is therefore + dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved + representation, even though such a retrieval is only performed if the + URI is dereferenced. If no such representation exists, then the + semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and are effectively + unconstrained. Fragment identifier semantics are independent of the + URI scheme and thus cannot be redefined by scheme specifications. + + Individual media types may define their own restrictions on or + structures within the fragment identifier syntax for specifying + different types of subsets, views, or external references that are + identifiable as secondary resources by that media type. If the + primary resource has multiple representations, as is often the case + for resources whose representation is selected based on attributes of + the retrieval request (a.k.a., content negotiation), then whatever is + identified by the fragment should be consistent across all of those + representations. Each representation should either define the + fragment so that it corresponds to the same secondary resource, + regardless of how it is represented, or should leave the fragment + undefined (i.e., not found). + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + As with any URI, use of a fragment identifier component does not + imply that a retrieval action will take place. A URI with a fragment + identifier may be used to refer to the secondary resource without any + implication that the primary resource is accessible or will ever be + accessed. + + Fragment identifiers have a special role in information retrieval + systems as the primary form of client-side indirect referencing, + allowing an author to specifically identify aspects of an existing + resource that are only indirectly provided by the resource owner. As + such, the fragment identifier is not used in the scheme-specific + processing of a URI; instead, the fragment identifier is separated + from the rest of the URI prior to a dereference, and thus the + identifying information within the fragment itself is dereferenced + solely by the user agent, regardless of the URI scheme. Although + this separate handling is often perceived to be a loss of + information, particularly for accurate redirection of references as + resources move over time, it also serves to prevent information + providers from denying reference authors the right to refer to + information within a resource selectively. Indirect referencing also + provides additional flexibility and extensibility to systems that use + URIs, as new media types are easier to define and deploy than new + schemes of identification. + + The characters slash ("/") and question mark ("?") are allowed to + represent data within the fragment identifier. Beware that some + older, erroneous implementations may not handle this data correctly + when it is used as the base URI for relative references (Section + 5.1). + +4. Usage + + When applications make reference to a URI, they do not always use the + full form of reference defined by the "URI" syntax rule. To save + space and take advantage of hierarchical locality, many Internet + protocol elements and media type formats allow an abbreviation of a + URI, whereas others restrict the syntax to a particular form of URI. + We define the most common forms of reference syntax in this + specification because they impact and depend upon the design of the + generic syntax, requiring a uniform parsing algorithm in order to be + interpreted consistently. + +4.1. URI Reference + + URI-reference is used to denote the most common usage of a resource + identifier. + + URI-reference = URI / relative-ref + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + A URI-reference is either a URI or a relative reference. If the + URI-reference's prefix does not match the syntax of a scheme followed + by its colon separator, then the URI-reference is a relative + reference. + + A URI-reference is typically parsed first into the five URI + components, in order to determine what components are present and + whether the reference is relative. Then, each component is parsed + for its subparts and their validation. The ABNF of URI-reference, + along with the "first-match-wins" disambiguation rule, is sufficient + to define a validating parser for the generic syntax. Readers + familiar with regular expressions should see Appendix B for an + example of a non-validating URI-reference parser that will take any + given string and extract the URI components. + +4.2. Relative Reference + + A relative reference takes advantage of the hierarchical syntax + (Section 1.2.3) to express a URI reference relative to the name space + of another hierarchical URI. + + relative-ref = relative-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] + + relative-part = "//" authority path-abempty + / path-absolute + / path-noscheme + / path-empty + + The URI referred to by a relative reference, also known as the target + URI, is obtained by applying the reference resolution algorithm of + Section 5. + + A relative reference that begins with two slash characters is termed + a network-path reference; such references are rarely used. A + relative reference that begins with a single slash character is + termed an absolute-path reference. A relative reference that does + not begin with a slash character is termed a relative-path reference. + + A path segment that contains a colon character (e.g., "this:that") + cannot be used as the first segment of a relative-path reference, as + it would be mistaken for a scheme name. Such a segment must be + preceded by a dot-segment (e.g., "./this:that") to make a relative- + path reference. + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +4.3. Absolute URI + + Some protocol elements allow only the absolute form of a URI without + a fragment identifier. For example, defining a base URI for later + use by relative references calls for an absolute-URI syntax rule that + does not allow a fragment. + + absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] + + URI scheme specifications must define their own syntax so that all + strings matching their scheme-specific syntax will also match the + <absolute-URI> grammar. Scheme specifications will not define + fragment identifier syntax or usage, regardless of its applicability + to resources identifiable via that scheme, as fragment identification + is orthogonal to scheme definition. However, scheme specifications + are encouraged to include a wide range of examples, including + examples that show use of the scheme's URIs with fragment identifiers + when such usage is appropriate. + +4.4. Same-Document Reference + + When a URI reference refers to a URI that is, aside from its fragment + component (if any), identical to the base URI (Section 5.1), that + reference is called a "same-document" reference. The most frequent + examples of same-document references are relative references that are + empty or include only the number sign ("#") separator followed by a + fragment identifier. + + When a same-document reference is dereferenced for a retrieval + action, the target of that reference is defined to be within the same + entity (representation, document, or message) as the reference; + therefore, a dereference should not result in a new retrieval action. + + Normalization of the base and target URIs prior to their comparison, + as described in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, is allowed but rarely + performed in practice. Normalization may increase the set of same- + document references, which may be of benefit to some caching + applications. As such, reference authors should not assume that a + slightly different, though equivalent, reference URI will (or will + not) be interpreted as a same-document reference by any given + application. + +4.5. Suffix Reference + + The URI syntax is designed for unambiguous reference to resources and + extensibility via the URI scheme. However, as URI identification and + usage have become commonplace, traditional media (television, radio, + newspapers, billboards, etc.) have increasingly used a suffix of the + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + URI as a reference, consisting of only the authority and path + portions of the URI, such as + + www.w3.org/Addressing/ + + or simply a DNS registered name on its own. Such references are + primarily intended for human interpretation rather than for machines, + with the assumption that context-based heuristics are sufficient to + complete the URI (e.g., most registered names beginning with "www" + are likely to have a URI prefix of "http://"). Although there is no + standard set of heuristics for disambiguating a URI suffix, many + client implementations allow them to be entered by the user and + heuristically resolved. + + Although this practice of using suffix references is common, it + should be avoided whenever possible and should never be used in + situations where long-term references are expected. The heuristics + noted above will change over time, particularly when a new URI scheme + becomes popular, and are often incorrect when used out of context. + Furthermore, they can lead to security issues along the lines of + those described in [RFC1535]. + + As a URI suffix has the same syntax as a relative-path reference, a + suffix reference cannot be used in contexts where a relative + reference is expected. As a result, suffix references are limited to + places where there is no defined base URI, such as dialog boxes and + off-line advertisements. + +5. Reference Resolution + + This section defines the process of resolving a URI reference within + a context that allows relative references so that the result is a + string matching the <URI> syntax rule of Section 3. + +5.1. Establishing a Base URI + + The term "relative" implies that a "base URI" exists against which + the relative reference is applied. Aside from fragment-only + references (Section 4.4), relative references are only usable when a + base URI is known. A base URI must be established by the parser + prior to parsing URI references that might be relative. A base URI + must conform to the <absolute-URI> syntax rule (Section 4.3). If the + base URI is obtained from a URI reference, then that reference must + be converted to absolute form and stripped of any fragment component + prior to its use as a base URI. + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + The base URI of a reference can be established in one of four ways, + discussed below in order of precedence. The order of precedence can + be thought of in terms of layers, where the innermost defined base + URI has the highest precedence. This can be visualized graphically + as follows: + + .----------------------------------------------------------. + | .----------------------------------------------------. | + | | .----------------------------------------------. | | + | | | .----------------------------------------. | | | + | | | | .----------------------------------. | | | | + | | | | | <relative-reference> | | | | | + | | | | `----------------------------------' | | | | + | | | | (5.1.1) Base URI embedded in content | | | | + | | | `----------------------------------------' | | | + | | | (5.1.2) Base URI of the encapsulating entity | | | + | | | (message, representation, or none) | | | + | | `----------------------------------------------' | | + | | (5.1.3) URI used to retrieve the entity | | + | `----------------------------------------------------' | + | (5.1.4) Default Base URI (application-dependent) | + `----------------------------------------------------------' + +5.1.1. Base URI Embedded in Content + + Within certain media types, a base URI for relative references can be + embedded within the content itself so that it can be readily obtained + by a parser. This can be useful for descriptive documents, such as + tables of contents, which may be transmitted to others through + protocols other than their usual retrieval context (e.g., email or + USENET news). + + It is beyond the scope of this specification to specify how, for each + media type, a base URI can be embedded. The appropriate syntax, when + available, is described by the data format specification associated + with each media type. + +5.1.2. Base URI from the Encapsulating Entity + + If no base URI is embedded, the base URI is defined by the + representation's retrieval context. For a document that is enclosed + within another entity, such as a message or archive, the retrieval + context is that entity. Thus, the default base URI of a + representation is the base URI of the entity in which the + representation is encapsulated. + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + A mechanism for embedding a base URI within MIME container types + (e.g., the message and multipart types) is defined by MHTML + [RFC2557]. Protocols that do not use the MIME message header syntax, + but that do allow some form of tagged metadata to be included within + messages, may define their own syntax for defining a base URI as part + of a message. + +5.1.3. Base URI from the Retrieval URI + + If no base URI is embedded and the representation is not encapsulated + within some other entity, then, if a URI was used to retrieve the + representation, that URI shall be considered the base URI. Note that + if the retrieval was the result of a redirected request, the last URI + used (i.e., the URI that resulted in the actual retrieval of the + representation) is the base URI. + +5.1.4. Default Base URI + + If none of the conditions described above apply, then the base URI is + defined by the context of the application. As this definition is + necessarily application-dependent, failing to define a base URI by + using one of the other methods may result in the same content being + interpreted differently by different types of applications. + + A sender of a representation containing relative references is + responsible for ensuring that a base URI for those references can be + established. Aside from fragment-only references, relative + references can only be used reliably in situations where the base URI + is well defined. + +5.2. Relative Resolution + + This section describes an algorithm for converting a URI reference + that might be relative to a given base URI into the parsed components + of the reference's target. The components can then be recomposed, as + described in Section 5.3, to form the target URI. This algorithm + provides definitive results that can be used to test the output of + other implementations. Applications may implement relative reference + resolution by using some other algorithm, provided that the results + match what would be given by this one. + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +5.2.1. Pre-parse the Base URI + + The base URI (Base) is established according to the procedure of + Section 5.1 and parsed into the five main components described in + Section 3. Note that only the scheme component is required to be + present in a base URI; the other components may be empty or + undefined. A component is undefined if its associated delimiter does + not appear in the URI reference; the path component is never + undefined, though it may be empty. + + Normalization of the base URI, as described in Sections 6.2.2 and + 6.2.3, is optional. A URI reference must be transformed to its + target URI before it can be normalized. + +5.2.2. Transform References + + For each URI reference (R), the following pseudocode describes an + algorithm for transforming R into its target URI (T): + + -- The URI reference is parsed into the five URI components + -- + (R.scheme, R.authority, R.path, R.query, R.fragment) = parse(R); + + -- A non-strict parser may ignore a scheme in the reference + -- if it is identical to the base URI's scheme. + -- + if ((not strict) and (R.scheme == Base.scheme)) then + undefine(R.scheme); + endif; + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + if defined(R.scheme) then + T.scheme = R.scheme; + T.authority = R.authority; + T.path = remove_dot_segments(R.path); + T.query = R.query; + else + if defined(R.authority) then + T.authority = R.authority; + T.path = remove_dot_segments(R.path); + T.query = R.query; + else + if (R.path == "") then + T.path = Base.path; + if defined(R.query) then + T.query = R.query; + else + T.query = Base.query; + endif; + else + if (R.path starts-with "/") then + T.path = remove_dot_segments(R.path); + else + T.path = merge(Base.path, R.path); + T.path = remove_dot_segments(T.path); + endif; + T.query = R.query; + endif; + T.authority = Base.authority; + endif; + T.scheme = Base.scheme; + endif; + + T.fragment = R.fragment; + +5.2.3. Merge Paths + + The pseudocode above refers to a "merge" routine for merging a + relative-path reference with the path of the base URI. This is + accomplished as follows: + + o If the base URI has a defined authority component and an empty + path, then return a string consisting of "/" concatenated with the + reference's path; otherwise, + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 32] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + o return a string consisting of the reference's path component + appended to all but the last segment of the base URI's path (i.e., + excluding any characters after the right-most "/" in the base URI + path, or excluding the entire base URI path if it does not contain + any "/" characters). + +5.2.4. Remove Dot Segments + + The pseudocode also refers to a "remove_dot_segments" routine for + interpreting and removing the special "." and ".." complete path + segments from a referenced path. This is done after the path is + extracted from a reference, whether or not the path was relative, in + order to remove any invalid or extraneous dot-segments prior to + forming the target URI. Although there are many ways to accomplish + this removal process, we describe a simple method using two string + buffers. + + 1. The input buffer is initialized with the now-appended path + components and the output buffer is initialized to the empty + string. + + 2. While the input buffer is not empty, loop as follows: + + A. If the input buffer begins with a prefix of "../" or "./", + then remove that prefix from the input buffer; otherwise, + + B. if the input buffer begins with a prefix of "/./" or "/.", + where "." is a complete path segment, then replace that + prefix with "/" in the input buffer; otherwise, + + C. if the input buffer begins with a prefix of "/../" or "/..", + where ".." is a complete path segment, then replace that + prefix with "/" in the input buffer and remove the last + segment and its preceding "/" (if any) from the output + buffer; otherwise, + + D. if the input buffer consists only of "." or "..", then remove + that from the input buffer; otherwise, + + E. move the first path segment in the input buffer to the end of + the output buffer, including the initial "/" character (if + any) and any subsequent characters up to, but not including, + the next "/" character or the end of the input buffer. + + 3. Finally, the output buffer is returned as the result of + remove_dot_segments. + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 33] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + Note that dot-segments are intended for use in URI references to + express an identifier relative to the hierarchy of names in the base + URI. The remove_dot_segments algorithm respects that hierarchy by + removing extra dot-segments rather than treat them as an error or + leaving them to be misinterpreted by dereference implementations. + + The following illustrates how the above steps are applied for two + examples of merged paths, showing the state of the two buffers after + each step. + + STEP OUTPUT BUFFER INPUT BUFFER + + 1 : /a/b/c/./../../g + 2E: /a /b/c/./../../g + 2E: /a/b /c/./../../g + 2E: /a/b/c /./../../g + 2B: /a/b/c /../../g + 2C: /a/b /../g + 2C: /a /g + 2E: /a/g + + STEP OUTPUT BUFFER INPUT BUFFER + + 1 : mid/content=5/../6 + 2E: mid /content=5/../6 + 2E: mid/content=5 /../6 + 2C: mid /6 + 2E: mid/6 + + Some applications may find it more efficient to implement the + remove_dot_segments algorithm by using two segment stacks rather than + strings. + + Note: Beware that some older, erroneous implementations will fail + to separate a reference's query component from its path component + prior to merging the base and reference paths, resulting in an + interoperability failure if the query component contains the + strings "/../" or "/./". + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 34] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +5.3. Component Recomposition + + Parsed URI components can be recomposed to obtain the corresponding + URI reference string. Using pseudocode, this would be: + + result = "" + + if defined(scheme) then + append scheme to result; + append ":" to result; + endif; + + if defined(authority) then + append "//" to result; + append authority to result; + endif; + + append path to result; + + if defined(query) then + append "?" to result; + append query to result; + endif; + + if defined(fragment) then + append "#" to result; + append fragment to result; + endif; + + return result; + + Note that we are careful to preserve the distinction between a + component that is undefined, meaning that its separator was not + present in the reference, and a component that is empty, meaning that + the separator was present and was immediately followed by the next + component separator or the end of the reference. + +5.4. Reference Resolution Examples + + Within a representation with a well defined base URI of + + http://a/b/c/d;p?q + + a relative reference is transformed to its target URI as follows. + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 35] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +5.4.1. Normal Examples + + "g:h" = "g:h" + "g" = "http://a/b/c/g" + "./g" = "http://a/b/c/g" + "g/" = "http://a/b/c/g/" + "/g" = "http://a/g" + "//g" = "http://g" + "?y" = "http://a/b/c/d;p?y" + "g?y" = "http://a/b/c/g?y" + "#s" = "http://a/b/c/d;p?q#s" + "g#s" = "http://a/b/c/g#s" + "g?y#s" = "http://a/b/c/g?y#s" + ";x" = "http://a/b/c/;x" + "g;x" = "http://a/b/c/g;x" + "g;x?y#s" = "http://a/b/c/g;x?y#s" + "" = "http://a/b/c/d;p?q" + "." = "http://a/b/c/" + "./" = "http://a/b/c/" + ".." = "http://a/b/" + "../" = "http://a/b/" + "../g" = "http://a/b/g" + "../.." = "http://a/" + "../../" = "http://a/" + "../../g" = "http://a/g" + +5.4.2. Abnormal Examples + + Although the following abnormal examples are unlikely to occur in + normal practice, all URI parsers should be capable of resolving them + consistently. Each example uses the same base as that above. + + Parsers must be careful in handling cases where there are more ".." + segments in a relative-path reference than there are hierarchical + levels in the base URI's path. Note that the ".." syntax cannot be + used to change the authority component of a URI. + + "../../../g" = "http://a/g" + "../../../../g" = "http://a/g" + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 36] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + Similarly, parsers must remove the dot-segments "." and ".." when + they are complete components of a path, but not when they are only + part of a segment. + + "/./g" = "http://a/g" + "/../g" = "http://a/g" + "g." = "http://a/b/c/g." + ".g" = "http://a/b/c/.g" + "g.." = "http://a/b/c/g.." + "..g" = "http://a/b/c/..g" + + Less likely are cases where the relative reference uses unnecessary + or nonsensical forms of the "." and ".." complete path segments. + + "./../g" = "http://a/b/g" + "./g/." = "http://a/b/c/g/" + "g/./h" = "http://a/b/c/g/h" + "g/../h" = "http://a/b/c/h" + "g;x=1/./y" = "http://a/b/c/g;x=1/y" + "g;x=1/../y" = "http://a/b/c/y" + + Some applications fail to separate the reference's query and/or + fragment components from the path component before merging it with + the base path and removing dot-segments. This error is rarely + noticed, as typical usage of a fragment never includes the hierarchy + ("/") character and the query component is not normally used within + relative references. + + "g?y/./x" = "http://a/b/c/g?y/./x" + "g?y/../x" = "http://a/b/c/g?y/../x" + "g#s/./x" = "http://a/b/c/g#s/./x" + "g#s/../x" = "http://a/b/c/g#s/../x" + + Some parsers allow the scheme name to be present in a relative + reference if it is the same as the base URI scheme. This is + considered to be a loophole in prior specifications of partial URI + [RFC1630]. Its use should be avoided but is allowed for backward + compatibility. + + "http:g" = "http:g" ; for strict parsers + / "http://a/b/c/g" ; for backward compatibility + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 37] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +6. Normalization and Comparison + + One of the most common operations on URIs is simple comparison: + determining whether two URIs are equivalent without using the URIs to + access their respective resource(s). A comparison is performed every + time a response cache is accessed, a browser checks its history to + color a link, or an XML parser processes tags within a namespace. + Extensive normalization prior to comparison of URIs is often used by + spiders and indexing engines to prune a search space or to reduce + duplication of request actions and response storage. + + URI comparison is performed for some particular purpose. Protocols + or implementations that compare URIs for different purposes will + often be subject to differing design trade-offs in regards to how + much effort should be spent in reducing aliased identifiers. This + section describes various methods that may be used to compare URIs, + the trade-offs between them, and the types of applications that might + use them. + +6.1. Equivalence + + Because URIs exist to identify resources, presumably they should be + considered equivalent when they identify the same resource. However, + this definition of equivalence is not of much practical use, as there + is no way for an implementation to compare two resources unless it + has full knowledge or control of them. For this reason, + determination of equivalence or difference of URIs is based on string + comparison, perhaps augmented by reference to additional rules + provided by URI scheme definitions. We use the terms "different" and + "equivalent" to describe the possible outcomes of such comparisons, + but there are many application-dependent versions of equivalence. + + Even though it is possible to determine that two URIs are equivalent, + URI comparison is not sufficient to determine whether two URIs + identify different resources. For example, an owner of two different + domain names could decide to serve the same resource from both, + resulting in two different URIs. Therefore, comparison methods are + designed to minimize false negatives while strictly avoiding false + positives. + + In testing for equivalence, applications should not directly compare + relative references; the references should be converted to their + respective target URIs before comparison. When URIs are compared to + select (or avoid) a network action, such as retrieval of a + representation, fragment components (if any) should be excluded from + the comparison. + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 38] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +6.2. Comparison Ladder + + A variety of methods are used in practice to test URI equivalence. + These methods fall into a range, distinguished by the amount of + processing required and the degree to which the probability of false + negatives is reduced. As noted above, false negatives cannot be + eliminated. In practice, their probability can be reduced, but this + reduction requires more processing and is not cost-effective for all + applications. + + If this range of comparison practices is considered as a ladder, the + following discussion will climb the ladder, starting with practices + that are cheap but have a relatively higher chance of producing false + negatives, and proceeding to those that have higher computational + cost and lower risk of false negatives. + +6.2.1. Simple String Comparison + + If two URIs, when considered as character strings, are identical, + then it is safe to conclude that they are equivalent. This type of + equivalence test has very low computational cost and is in wide use + in a variety of applications, particularly in the domain of parsing. + + Testing strings for equivalence requires some basic precautions. + This procedure is often referred to as "bit-for-bit" or + "byte-for-byte" comparison, which is potentially misleading. Testing + strings for equality is normally based on pair comparison of the + characters that make up the strings, starting from the first and + proceeding until both strings are exhausted and all characters are + found to be equal, until a pair of characters compares unequal, or + until one of the strings is exhausted before the other. + + This character comparison requires that each pair of characters be + put in comparable form. For example, should one URI be stored in a + byte array in EBCDIC encoding and the second in a Java String object + (UTF-16), bit-for-bit comparisons applied naively will produce + errors. It is better to speak of equality on a character-for- + character basis rather than on a byte-for-byte or bit-for-bit basis. + In practical terms, character-by-character comparisons should be done + codepoint-by-codepoint after conversion to a common character + encoding. + + False negatives are caused by the production and use of URI aliases. + Unnecessary aliases can be reduced, regardless of the comparison + method, by consistently providing URI references in an already- + normalized form (i.e., a form identical to what would be produced + after normalization is applied, as described below). + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 39] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + Protocols and data formats often limit some URI comparisons to simple + string comparison, based on the theory that people and + implementations will, in their own best interest, be consistent in + providing URI references, or at least consistent enough to negate any + efficiency that might be obtained from further normalization. + +6.2.2. Syntax-Based Normalization + + Implementations may use logic based on the definitions provided by + this specification to reduce the probability of false negatives. + This processing is moderately higher in cost than character-for- + character string comparison. For example, an application using this + approach could reasonably consider the following two URIs equivalent: + + example://a/b/c/%7Bfoo%7D + eXAMPLE://a/./b/../b/%63/%7bfoo%7d + + Web user agents, such as browsers, typically apply this type of URI + normalization when determining whether a cached response is + available. Syntax-based normalization includes such techniques as + case normalization, percent-encoding normalization, and removal of + dot-segments. + +6.2.2.1. Case Normalization + + For all URIs, the hexadecimal digits within a percent-encoding + triplet (e.g., "%3a" versus "%3A") are case-insensitive and therefore + should be normalized to use uppercase letters for the digits A-F. + + When a URI uses components of the generic syntax, the component + syntax equivalence rules always apply; namely, that the scheme and + host are case-insensitive and therefore should be normalized to + lowercase. For example, the URI <HTTP://www.EXAMPLE.com/> is + equivalent to <http://www.example.com/>. The other generic syntax + components are assumed to be case-sensitive unless specifically + defined otherwise by the scheme (see Section 6.2.3). + +6.2.2.2. Percent-Encoding Normalization + + The percent-encoding mechanism (Section 2.1) is a frequent source of + variance among otherwise identical URIs. In addition to the case + normalization issue noted above, some URI producers percent-encode + octets that do not require percent-encoding, resulting in URIs that + are equivalent to their non-encoded counterparts. These URIs should + be normalized by decoding any percent-encoded octet that corresponds + to an unreserved character, as described in Section 2.3. + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 40] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +6.2.2.3. Path Segment Normalization + + The complete path segments "." and ".." are intended only for use + within relative references (Section 4.1) and are removed as part of + the reference resolution process (Section 5.2). However, some + deployed implementations incorrectly assume that reference resolution + is not necessary when the reference is already a URI and thus fail to + remove dot-segments when they occur in non-relative paths. URI + normalizers should remove dot-segments by applying the + remove_dot_segments algorithm to the path, as described in + Section 5.2.4. + +6.2.3. Scheme-Based Normalization + + The syntax and semantics of URIs vary from scheme to scheme, as + described by the defining specification for each scheme. + Implementations may use scheme-specific rules, at further processing + cost, to reduce the probability of false negatives. For example, + because the "http" scheme makes use of an authority component, has a + default port of "80", and defines an empty path to be equivalent to + "/", the following four URIs are equivalent: + + http://example.com + http://example.com/ + http://example.com:/ + http://example.com:80/ + + In general, a URI that uses the generic syntax for authority with an + empty path should be normalized to a path of "/". Likewise, an + explicit ":port", for which the port is empty or the default for the + scheme, is equivalent to one where the port and its ":" delimiter are + elided and thus should be removed by scheme-based normalization. For + example, the second URI above is the normal form for the "http" + scheme. + + Another case where normalization varies by scheme is in the handling + of an empty authority component or empty host subcomponent. For many + scheme specifications, an empty authority or host is considered an + error; for others, it is considered equivalent to "localhost" or the + end-user's host. When a scheme defines a default for authority and a + URI reference to that default is desired, the reference should be + normalized to an empty authority for the sake of uniformity, brevity, + and internationalization. If, however, either the userinfo or port + subcomponents are non-empty, then the host should be given explicitly + even if it matches the default. + + Normalization should not remove delimiters when their associated + component is empty unless licensed to do so by the scheme + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 41] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + specification. For example, the URI "http://example.com/?" cannot be + assumed to be equivalent to any of the examples above. Likewise, the + presence or absence of delimiters within a userinfo subcomponent is + usually significant to its interpretation. The fragment component is + not subject to any scheme-based normalization; thus, two URIs that + differ only by the suffix "#" are considered different regardless of + the scheme. + + Some schemes define additional subcomponents that consist of case- + insensitive data, giving an implicit license to normalizers to + convert this data to a common case (e.g., all lowercase). For + example, URI schemes that define a subcomponent of path to contain an + Internet hostname, such as the "mailto" URI scheme, cause that + subcomponent to be case-insensitive and thus subject to case + normalization (e.g., "mailto:[email protected]" is equivalent to + "mailto:[email protected]", even though the generic syntax considers + the path component to be case-sensitive). + + Other scheme-specific normalizations are possible. + +6.2.4. Protocol-Based Normalization + + Substantial effort to reduce the incidence of false negatives is + often cost-effective for web spiders. Therefore, they implement even + more aggressive techniques in URI comparison. For example, if they + observe that a URI such as + + http://example.com/data + + redirects to a URI differing only in the trailing slash + + http://example.com/data/ + + they will likely regard the two as equivalent in the future. This + kind of technique is only appropriate when equivalence is clearly + indicated by both the result of accessing the resources and the + common conventions of their scheme's dereference algorithm (in this + case, use of redirection by HTTP origin servers to avoid problems + with relative references). + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 42] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +7. Security Considerations + + A URI does not in itself pose a security threat. However, as URIs + are often used to provide a compact set of instructions for access to + network resources, care must be taken to properly interpret the data + within a URI, to prevent that data from causing unintended access, + and to avoid including data that should not be revealed in plain + text. + +7.1. Reliability and Consistency + + There is no guarantee that once a URI has been used to retrieve + information, the same information will be retrievable by that URI in + the future. Nor is there any guarantee that the information + retrievable via that URI in the future will be observably similar to + that retrieved in the past. The URI syntax does not constrain how a + given scheme or authority apportions its namespace or maintains it + over time. Such guarantees can only be obtained from the person(s) + controlling that namespace and the resource in question. A specific + URI scheme may define additional semantics, such as name persistence, + if those semantics are required of all naming authorities for that + scheme. + +7.2. Malicious Construction + + It is sometimes possible to construct a URI so that an attempt to + perform a seemingly harmless, idempotent operation, such as the + retrieval of a representation, will in fact cause a possibly damaging + remote operation. The unsafe URI is typically constructed by + specifying a port number other than that reserved for the network + protocol in question. The client unwittingly contacts a site running + a different protocol service, and data within the URI contains + instructions that, when interpreted according to this other protocol, + cause an unexpected operation. A frequent example of such abuse has + been the use of a protocol-based scheme with a port component of + "25", thereby fooling user agent software into sending an unintended + or impersonating message via an SMTP server. + + Applications should prevent dereference of a URI that specifies a TCP + port number within the "well-known port" range (0 - 1023) unless the + protocol being used to dereference that URI is compatible with the + protocol expected on that well-known port. Although IANA maintains a + registry of well-known ports, applications should make such + restrictions user-configurable to avoid preventing the deployment of + new services. + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 43] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + When a URI contains percent-encoded octets that match the delimiters + for a given resolution or dereference protocol (for example, CR and + LF characters for the TELNET protocol), these percent-encodings must + not be decoded before transmission across that protocol. Transfer of + the percent-encoding, which might violate the protocol, is less + harmful than allowing decoded octets to be interpreted as additional + operations or parameters, perhaps triggering an unexpected and + possibly harmful remote operation. + +7.3. Back-End Transcoding + + When a URI is dereferenced, the data within it is often parsed by + both the user agent and one or more servers. In HTTP, for example, a + typical user agent will parse a URI into its five major components, + access the authority's server, and send it the data within the + authority, path, and query components. A typical server will take + that information, parse the path into segments and the query into + key/value pairs, and then invoke implementation-specific handlers to + respond to the request. As a result, a common security concern for + server implementations that handle a URI, either as a whole or split + into separate components, is proper interpretation of the octet data + represented by the characters and percent-encodings within that URI. + + Percent-encoded octets must be decoded at some point during the + dereference process. Applications must split the URI into its + components and subcomponents prior to decoding the octets, as + otherwise the decoded octets might be mistaken for delimiters. + Security checks of the data within a URI should be applied after + decoding the octets. Note, however, that the "%00" percent-encoding + (NUL) may require special handling and should be rejected if the + application is not expecting to receive raw data within a component. + + Special care should be taken when the URI path interpretation process + involves the use of a back-end file system or related system + functions. File systems typically assign an operational meaning to + special characters, such as the "/", "\", ":", "[", and "]" + characters, and to special device names like ".", "..", "...", "aux", + "lpt", etc. In some cases, merely testing for the existence of such + a name will cause the operating system to pause or invoke unrelated + system calls, leading to significant security concerns regarding + denial of service and unintended data transfer. It would be + impossible for this specification to list all such significant + characters and device names. Implementers should research the + reserved names and characters for the types of storage device that + may be attached to their applications and restrict the use of data + obtained from URI components accordingly. + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 44] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +7.4. Rare IP Address Formats + + Although the URI syntax for IPv4address only allows the common + dotted-decimal form of IPv4 address literal, many implementations + that process URIs make use of platform-dependent system routines, + such as gethostbyname() and inet_aton(), to translate the string + literal to an actual IP address. Unfortunately, such system routines + often allow and process a much larger set of formats than those + described in Section 3.2.2. + + For example, many implementations allow dotted forms of three + numbers, wherein the last part is interpreted as a 16-bit quantity + and placed in the right-most two bytes of the network address (e.g., + a Class B network). Likewise, a dotted form of two numbers means + that the last part is interpreted as a 24-bit quantity and placed in + the right-most three bytes of the network address (Class A), and a + single number (without dots) is interpreted as a 32-bit quantity and + stored directly in the network address. Adding further to the + confusion, some implementations allow each dotted part to be + interpreted as decimal, octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C + language (i.e., a leading 0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; a leading 0 + implies octal; otherwise, the number is interpreted as decimal). + + These additional IP address formats are not allowed in the URI syntax + due to differences between platform implementations. However, they + can become a security concern if an application attempts to filter + access to resources based on the IP address in string literal format. + If this filtering is performed, literals should be converted to + numeric form and filtered based on the numeric value, and not on a + prefix or suffix of the string form. + +7.5. Sensitive Information + + URI producers should not provide a URI that contains a username or + password that is intended to be secret. URIs are frequently + displayed by browsers, stored in clear text bookmarks, and logged by + user agent history and intermediary applications (proxies). A + password appearing within the userinfo component is deprecated and + should be considered an error (or simply ignored) except in those + rare cases where the 'password' parameter is intended to be public. + +7.6. Semantic Attacks + + Because the userinfo subcomponent is rarely used and appears before + the host in the authority component, it can be used to construct a + URI intended to mislead a human user by appearing to identify one + (trusted) naming authority while actually identifying a different + authority hidden behind the noise. For example + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 45] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + ftp://cnn.example.com&[email protected]/top_story.htm + + might lead a human user to assume that the host is 'cnn.example.com', + whereas it is actually '10.0.0.1'. Note that a misleading userinfo + subcomponent could be much longer than the example above. + + A misleading URI, such as that above, is an attack on the user's + preconceived notions about the meaning of a URI rather than an attack + on the software itself. User agents may be able to reduce the impact + of such attacks by distinguishing the various components of the URI + when they are rendered, such as by using a different color or tone to + render userinfo if any is present, though there is no panacea. More + information on URI-based semantic attacks can be found in [Siedzik]. + +8. IANA Considerations + + URI scheme names, as defined by <scheme> in Section 3.1, form a + registered namespace that is managed by IANA according to the + procedures defined in [BCP35]. No IANA actions are required by this + document. + +9. Acknowledgements + + This specification is derived from RFC 2396 [RFC2396], RFC 1808 + [RFC1808], and RFC 1738 [RFC1738]; the acknowledgements in those + documents still apply. It also incorporates the update (with + corrections) for IPv6 literals in the host syntax, as defined by + Robert M. Hinden, Brian E. Carpenter, and Larry Masinter in + [RFC2732]. In addition, contributions by Gisle Aas, Reese Anschultz, + Daniel Barclay, Tim Bray, Mike Brown, Rob Cameron, Jeremy Carroll, + Dan Connolly, Adam M. Costello, John Cowan, Jason Diamond, Martin + Duerst, Stefan Eissing, Clive D.W. Feather, Al Gilman, Tony Hammond, + Elliotte Harold, Pat Hayes, Henry Holtzman, Ian B. Jacobs, Michael + Kay, John C. Klensin, Graham Klyne, Dan Kohn, Bruce Lilly, Andrew + Main, Dave McAlpin, Ira McDonald, Michael Mealling, Ray Merkert, + Stephen Pollei, Julian Reschke, Tomas Rokicki, Miles Sabin, Kai + Schaetzl, Mark Thomson, Ronald Tschalaer, Norm Walsh, Marc Warne, + Stuart Williams, and Henry Zongaro are gratefully acknowledged. + +10. References + +10.1. Normative References + + [ASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character + Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information + Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986. + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 46] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + [RFC2234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax + Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. + + [STD63] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of + ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003. + + [UCS] International Organization for Standardization, + "Information Technology - Universal Multiple-Octet Coded + Character Set (UCS)", ISO/IEC 10646:2003, December 2003. + +10.2. Informative References + + [BCP19] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration + Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000. + + [BCP35] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL + Scheme Names", BCP 35, RFC 2717, November 1999. + + [RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet + host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985. + + [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", + STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. + + [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application + and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. + + [RFC1535] Gavron, E., "A Security Problem and Proposed Correction + With Widely Deployed DNS Software", RFC 1535, + October 1993. + + [RFC1630] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A + Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses + of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web", + RFC 1630, June 1994. + + [RFC1736] Kunze, J., "Functional Recommendations for Internet + Resource Locators", RFC 1736, February 1995. + + [RFC1737] Sollins, K. and L. Masinter, "Functional Requirements for + Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994. + + [RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform + Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994. + + [RFC1808] Fielding, R., "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", + RFC 1808, June 1995. + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 47] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail + Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, + November 1996. + + [RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997. + + [RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform + Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, + August 1998. + + [RFC2518] Goland, Y., Whitehead, E., Faizi, A., Carter, S., and D. + Jensen, "HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring -- + WEBDAV", RFC 2518, February 1999. + + [RFC2557] Palme, J., Hopmann, A., and N. Shelness, "MIME + Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML + (MHTML)", RFC 2557, March 1999. + + [RFC2718] Masinter, L., Alvestrand, H., Zigmond, D., and R. Petke, + "Guidelines for new URL Schemes", RFC 2718, November 1999. + + [RFC2732] Hinden, R., Carpenter, B., and L. Masinter, "Format for + Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999. + + [RFC3305] Mealling, M. and R. Denenberg, "Report from the Joint + W3C/IETF URI Planning Interest Group: Uniform Resource + Identifiers (URIs), URLs, and Uniform Resource Names + (URNs): Clarifications and Recommendations", RFC 3305, + August 2002. + + [RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, + "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", + RFC 3490, March 2003. + + [RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 + (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. + + [Siedzik] Siedzik, R., "Semantic Attacks: What's in a URL?", + April 2001, <http://www.giac.org/practical/gsec/ + Richard_Siedzik_GSEC.pdf>. + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 48] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +Appendix A. Collected ABNF for URI + + URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] + + hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty + / path-absolute + / path-rootless + / path-empty + + URI-reference = URI / relative-ref + + absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] + + relative-ref = relative-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] + + relative-part = "//" authority path-abempty + / path-absolute + / path-noscheme + / path-empty + + scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." ) + + authority = [ userinfo "@" ] host [ ":" port ] + userinfo = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" ) + host = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name + port = *DIGIT + + IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]" + + IPvFuture = "v" 1*HEXDIG "." 1*( unreserved / sub-delims / ":" ) + + IPv6address = 6( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / "::" 5( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / [ h16 ] "::" 4( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / [ *1( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 3( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / [ *2( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 2( h16 ":" ) ls32 + / [ *3( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" h16 ":" ls32 + / [ *4( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" ls32 + / [ *5( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" h16 + / [ *6( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" + + h16 = 1*4HEXDIG + ls32 = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address + IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 49] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + dec-octet = DIGIT ; 0-9 + / %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99 + / "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199 + / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249 + / "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255 + + reg-name = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims ) + + path = path-abempty ; begins with "/" or is empty + / path-absolute ; begins with "/" but not "//" + / path-noscheme ; begins with a non-colon segment + / path-rootless ; begins with a segment + / path-empty ; zero characters + + path-abempty = *( "/" segment ) + path-absolute = "/" [ segment-nz *( "/" segment ) ] + path-noscheme = segment-nz-nc *( "/" segment ) + path-rootless = segment-nz *( "/" segment ) + path-empty = 0<pchar> + + segment = *pchar + segment-nz = 1*pchar + segment-nz-nc = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / "@" ) + ; non-zero-length segment without any colon ":" + + pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@" + + query = *( pchar / "/" / "?" ) + + fragment = *( pchar / "/" / "?" ) + + pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG + + unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" + reserved = gen-delims / sub-delims + gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@" + sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")" + / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "=" + +Appendix B. Parsing a URI Reference with a Regular Expression + + As the "first-match-wins" algorithm is identical to the "greedy" + disambiguation method used by POSIX regular expressions, it is + natural and commonplace to use a regular expression for parsing the + potential five components of a URI reference. + + The following line is the regular expression for breaking-down a + well-formed URI reference into its components. + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 50] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + ^(([^:/?#]+):)?(//([^/?#]*))?([^?#]*)(\?([^#]*))?(#(.*))? + 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 + + The numbers in the second line above are only to assist readability; + they indicate the reference points for each subexpression (i.e., each + paired parenthesis). We refer to the value matched for subexpression + <n> as $<n>. For example, matching the above expression to + + http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/#Related + + results in the following subexpression matches: + + $1 = http: + $2 = http + $3 = //www.ics.uci.edu + $4 = www.ics.uci.edu + $5 = /pub/ietf/uri/ + $6 = <undefined> + $7 = <undefined> + $8 = #Related + $9 = Related + + where <undefined> indicates that the component is not present, as is + the case for the query component in the above example. Therefore, we + can determine the value of the five components as + + scheme = $2 + authority = $4 + path = $5 + query = $7 + fragment = $9 + + Going in the opposite direction, we can recreate a URI reference from + its components by using the algorithm of Section 5.3. + +Appendix C. Delimiting a URI in Context + + URIs are often transmitted through formats that do not provide a + clear context for their interpretation. For example, there are many + occasions when a URI is included in plain text; examples include text + sent in email, USENET news, and on printed paper. In such cases, it + is important to be able to delimit the URI from the rest of the text, + and in particular from punctuation marks that might be mistaken for + part of the URI. + + In practice, URIs are delimited in a variety of ways, but usually + within double-quotes "http://example.com/", angle brackets + <http://example.com/>, or just by using whitespace: + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 51] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + http://example.com/ + + These wrappers do not form part of the URI. + + In some cases, extra whitespace (spaces, line-breaks, tabs, etc.) may + have to be added to break a long URI across lines. The whitespace + should be ignored when the URI is extracted. + + No whitespace should be introduced after a hyphen ("-") character. + Because some typesetters and printers may (erroneously) introduce a + hyphen at the end of line when breaking it, the interpreter of a URI + containing a line break immediately after a hyphen should ignore all + whitespace around the line break and should be aware that the hyphen + may or may not actually be part of the URI. + + Using <> angle brackets around each URI is especially recommended as + a delimiting style for a reference that contains embedded whitespace. + + The prefix "URL:" (with or without a trailing space) was formerly + recommended as a way to help distinguish a URI from other bracketed + designators, though it is not commonly used in practice and is no + longer recommended. + + For robustness, software that accepts user-typed URI should attempt + to recognize and strip both delimiters and embedded whitespace. + + For example, the text + + Yes, Jim, I found it under "http://www.w3.org/Addressing/", + but you can probably pick it up from <ftp://foo.example. + com/rfc/>. Note the warning in <http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ + ietf/uri/historical.html#WARNING>. + + contains the URI references + + http://www.w3.org/Addressing/ + ftp://foo.example.com/rfc/ + http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/historical.html#WARNING + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 52] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +Appendix D. Changes from RFC 2396 + +D.1. Additions + + An ABNF rule for URI has been introduced to correspond to one common + usage of the term: an absolute URI with optional fragment. + + IPv6 (and later) literals have been added to the list of possible + identifiers for the host portion of an authority component, as + described by [RFC2732], with the addition of "[" and "]" to the + reserved set and a version flag to anticipate future versions of IP + literals. Square brackets are now specified as reserved within the + authority component and are not allowed outside their use as + delimiters for an IP literal within host. In order to make this + change without changing the technical definition of the path, query, + and fragment components, those rules were redefined to directly + specify the characters allowed. + + As [RFC2732] defers to [RFC3513] for definition of an IPv6 literal + address, which, unfortunately, lacks an ABNF description of + IPv6address, we created a new ABNF rule for IPv6address that matches + the text representations defined by Section 2.2 of [RFC3513]. + Likewise, the definition of IPv4address has been improved in order to + limit each decimal octet to the range 0-255. + + Section 6, on URI normalization and comparison, has been completely + rewritten and extended by using input from Tim Bray and discussion + within the W3C Technical Architecture Group. + +D.2. Modifications + + The ad-hoc BNF syntax of RFC 2396 has been replaced with the ABNF of + [RFC2234]. This change required all rule names that formerly + included underscore characters to be renamed with a dash instead. In + addition, a number of syntax rules have been eliminated or simplified + to make the overall grammar more comprehensible. Specifications that + refer to the obsolete grammar rules may be understood by replacing + those rules according to the following table: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 53] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ + | obsolete rule | translation | + +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ + | absoluteURI | absolute-URI | + | relativeURI | relative-part [ "?" query ] | + | hier_part | ( "//" authority path-abempty / | + | | path-absolute ) [ "?" query ] | + | | | + | opaque_part | path-rootless [ "?" query ] | + | net_path | "//" authority path-abempty | + | abs_path | path-absolute | + | rel_path | path-rootless | + | rel_segment | segment-nz-nc | + | reg_name | reg-name | + | server | authority | + | hostport | host [ ":" port ] | + | hostname | reg-name | + | path_segments | path-abempty | + | param | *<pchar excluding ";"> | + | | | + | uric | unreserved / pct-encoded / ";" / "?" / ":" | + | | / "@" / "&" / "=" / "+" / "$" / "," / "/" | + | | | + | uric_no_slash | unreserved / pct-encoded / ";" / "?" / ":" | + | | / "@" / "&" / "=" / "+" / "$" / "," | + | | | + | mark | "-" / "_" / "." / "!" / "~" / "*" / "'" | + | | / "(" / ")" | + | | | + | escaped | pct-encoded | + | hex | HEXDIG | + | alphanum | ALPHA / DIGIT | + +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ + + Use of the above obsolete rules for the definition of scheme-specific + syntax is deprecated. + + Section 2, on characters, has been rewritten to explain what + characters are reserved, when they are reserved, and why they are + reserved, even when they are not used as delimiters by the generic + syntax. The mark characters that are typically unsafe to decode, + including the exclamation mark ("!"), asterisk ("*"), single-quote + ("'"), and open and close parentheses ("(" and ")"), have been moved + to the reserved set in order to clarify the distinction between + reserved and unreserved and, hopefully, to answer the most common + question of scheme designers. Likewise, the section on + percent-encoded characters has been rewritten, and URI normalizers + are now given license to decode any percent-encoded octets + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 54] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + corresponding to unreserved characters. In general, the terms + "escaped" and "unescaped" have been replaced with "percent-encoded" + and "decoded", respectively, to reduce confusion with other forms of + escape mechanisms. + + The ABNF for URI and URI-reference has been redesigned to make them + more friendly to LALR parsers and to reduce complexity. As a result, + the layout form of syntax description has been removed, along with + the uric, uric_no_slash, opaque_part, net_path, abs_path, rel_path, + path_segments, rel_segment, and mark rules. All references to + "opaque" URIs have been replaced with a better description of how the + path component may be opaque to hierarchy. The relativeURI rule has + been replaced with relative-ref to avoid unnecessary confusion over + whether they are a subset of URI. The ambiguity regarding the + parsing of URI-reference as a URI or a relative-ref with a colon in + the first segment has been eliminated through the use of five + separate path matching rules. + + The fragment identifier has been moved back into the section on + generic syntax components and within the URI and relative-ref rules, + though it remains excluded from absolute-URI. The number sign ("#") + character has been moved back to the reserved set as a result of + reintegrating the fragment syntax. + + The ABNF has been corrected to allow the path component to be empty. + This also allows an absolute-URI to consist of nothing after the + "scheme:", as is present in practice with the "dav:" namespace + [RFC2518] and with the "about:" scheme used internally by many WWW + browser implementations. The ambiguity regarding the boundary + between authority and path has been eliminated through the use of + five separate path matching rules. + + Registry-based naming authorities that use the generic syntax are now + defined within the host rule. This change allows current + implementations, where whatever name provided is simply fed to the + local name resolution mechanism, to be consistent with the + specification. It also removes the need to re-specify DNS name + formats here. Furthermore, it allows the host component to contain + percent-encoded octets, which is necessary to enable + internationalized domain names to be provided in URIs, processed in + their native character encodings at the application layers above URI + processing, and passed to an IDNA library as a registered name in the + UTF-8 character encoding. The server, hostport, hostname, + domainlabel, toplabel, and alphanum rules have been removed. + + The resolving relative references algorithm of [RFC2396] has been + rewritten with pseudocode for this revision to improve clarity and + fix the following issues: + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 55] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + o [RFC2396] section 5.2, step 6a, failed to account for a base URI + with no path. + + o Restored the behavior of [RFC1808] where, if the reference + contains an empty path and a defined query component, the target + URI inherits the base URI's path component. + + o The determination of whether a URI reference is a same-document + reference has been decoupled from the URI parser, simplifying the + URI processing interface within applications in a way consistent + with the internal architecture of deployed URI processing + implementations. The determination is now based on comparison to + the base URI after transforming a reference to absolute form, + rather than on the format of the reference itself. This change + may result in more references being considered "same-document" + under this specification than there would be under the rules given + in RFC 2396, especially when normalization is used to reduce + aliases. However, it does not change the status of existing + same-document references. + + o Separated the path merge routine into two routines: merge, for + describing combination of the base URI path with a relative-path + reference, and remove_dot_segments, for describing how to remove + the special "." and ".." segments from a composed path. The + remove_dot_segments algorithm is now applied to all URI reference + paths in order to match common implementations and to improve the + normalization of URIs in practice. This change only impacts the + parsing of abnormal references and same-scheme references wherein + the base URI has a non-hierarchical path. + +Index + + A + ABNF 11 + absolute 27 + absolute-path 26 + absolute-URI 27 + access 9 + authority 17, 18 + + B + base URI 28 + + C + character encoding 4 + character 4 + characters 8, 11 + coded character set 4 + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 56] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + D + dec-octet 20 + dereference 9 + dot-segments 23 + + F + fragment 16, 24 + + G + gen-delims 13 + generic syntax 6 + + H + h16 20 + hier-part 16 + hierarchical 10 + host 18 + + I + identifier 5 + IP-literal 19 + IPv4 20 + IPv4address 19, 20 + IPv6 19 + IPv6address 19, 20 + IPvFuture 19 + + L + locator 7 + ls32 20 + + M + merge 32 + + N + name 7 + network-path 26 + + P + path 16, 22, 26 + path-abempty 22 + path-absolute 22 + path-empty 22 + path-noscheme 22 + path-rootless 22 + path-abempty 16, 22, 26 + path-absolute 16, 22, 26 + path-empty 16, 22, 26 + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 57] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + path-rootless 16, 22 + pchar 23 + pct-encoded 12 + percent-encoding 12 + port 22 + + Q + query 16, 23 + + R + reg-name 21 + registered name 20 + relative 10, 28 + relative-path 26 + relative-ref 26 + remove_dot_segments 33 + representation 9 + reserved 12 + resolution 9, 28 + resource 5 + retrieval 9 + + S + same-document 27 + sameness 9 + scheme 16, 17 + segment 22, 23 + segment-nz 23 + segment-nz-nc 23 + sub-delims 13 + suffix 27 + + T + transcription 8 + + U + uniform 4 + unreserved 13 + URI grammar + absolute-URI 27 + ALPHA 11 + authority 18 + CR 11 + dec-octet 20 + DIGIT 11 + DQUOTE 11 + fragment 24 + gen-delims 13 + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 58] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + + h16 20 + HEXDIG 11 + hier-part 16 + host 19 + IP-literal 19 + IPv4address 20 + IPv6address 20 + IPvFuture 19 + LF 11 + ls32 20 + OCTET 11 + path 22 + path-abempty 22 + path-absolute 22 + path-empty 22 + path-noscheme 22 + path-rootless 22 + pchar 23 + pct-encoded 12 + port 22 + query 24 + reg-name 21 + relative-ref 26 + reserved 13 + scheme 17 + segment 23 + segment-nz 23 + segment-nz-nc 23 + SP 11 + sub-delims 13 + unreserved 13 + URI 16 + URI-reference 25 + userinfo 18 + URI 16 + URI-reference 25 + URL 7 + URN 7 + userinfo 18 + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 59] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Tim Berners-Lee + World Wide Web Consortium + Massachusetts Institute of Technology + 77 Massachusetts Avenue + Cambridge, MA 02139 + USA + + Phone: +1-617-253-5702 + Fax: +1-617-258-5999 + EMail: [email protected] + URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ + + + Roy T. Fielding + Day Software + 5251 California Ave., Suite 110 + Irvine, CA 92617 + USA + + Phone: +1-949-679-2960 + Fax: +1-949-679-2972 + EMail: [email protected] + URI: http://roy.gbiv.com/ + + + Larry Masinter + Adobe Systems Incorporated + 345 Park Ave + San Jose, CA 95110 + USA + + Phone: +1-408-536-3024 + EMail: [email protected] + URI: http://larry.masinter.net/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 60] + +RFC 3986 URI Generic Syntax January 2005 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). + + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET + ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, + INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE + INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can + be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- + + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + +Berners-Lee, et al. Standards Track [Page 61] + |