Hi,
Julien Lepiller skribis:
> Le 17 juin 2020 17:57:33 GMT-04:00, "Ludovic Courtès" a écrit :
[...]
>>The regexp below is still an approximation, but I think a better one.
>>Can you confirm?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Ludo’.
>
> Looks slightly better, thanks.
>
> That's still incorrect, as it will match
Le 17 juin 2020 17:57:33 GMT-04:00, "Ludovic Courtès" a écrit :
>Hi Julien,
>
>Julien Lepiller skribis:
>
>> Using (web uri), I was trying to parse "uri://a/c". Reading RFC3986,
>it should be a valid URI (see rule for reg-name in 3.2.2). However,
>passing it to string->uri results in #f. I've tra
Hi Julien,
Julien Lepiller skribis:
> Using (web uri), I was trying to parse "uri://a/c". Reading RFC3986, it
> should be a valid URI (see rule for reg-name in 3.2.2). However, passing it
> to string->uri results in #f. I've tracked this down to valid-host? which
> returns #f for "a".
>
> The
Hi,
Using (web uri), I was trying to parse "uri://a/c". Reading RFC3986, it should
be a valid URI (see rule for reg-name in 3.2.2). However, passing it to
string->uri results in #f. I've tracked this down to valid-host? which returns
#f for "a".
The reason is that the regexp checking if the ho
