Talk:Uniform Resource Identifier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Uniform Resource Identifier was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of URI scheme was copied or moved into Uniform Resource Identifier with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
- For discussions before content was merged into this article in 2015, see Talk:URI scheme.
Syntax diagram
The syntax diagram added to the section General syntax, Definition was generated by the Railroad Diagram Generator using the following code:
URI ::= 'scheme' ':' ('//' (userinfo '@')? host (':' port)?)? path ('?' query)? ('#' fragment)?
based on the code in the two boxes above it.
Suggestion
Suggest URI resolution redirect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Done Good idea. — Scott • talk 12:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Scott 46.213.81.83 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Change syntax diagram
Shouldn't we changes the syntax diagram? For relative URIs the scheme part is optional.
I mean "img/button.jpg" is a valid (relative) URI.
Something like:
URI ::= ('scheme' ':')? ('//' (userinfo '@')? host (':' port)?)? path ('?' query)? ('#' fragment)?
If the scheme is absent, the first path segment is not allowed to contain a ":" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandswiss (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Schemes all still have to get resolved at some point. I would almost even assert that scheme alone is URI. It's a naming scheme for resources. Check out the syntax diagram syntax diagram. Going straight across from end to start, the line connects; data as a path, to a name or identifier. The IANA keeps records of the resource names. Simillarly to how ICANN connects hostnames to ip-addresses. And finally since everything is all uniform like using HTTP we can just assume all requests are HTTP not include it, and do little resolving if needed. --Flybird.dev (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
based on the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-3.2 :
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.
However a path dosen't have to start with "/".
I feel that the article diagram is misleading and suggest that / isn't a must between the authority and path. Also part of the misleading is that according to the diagram path must be included but it can be empty.
suggested solution: change the diagram to something like:
URI ::= 'scheme' ':' ('//' (userinfo '@')? host (':' port)? ('/' path)? | path) ('?' query)? ('#' fragment)?
Or maybe add a clarification in the paragraphs after the scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avizipi (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Syntax Section
Usually when I see tags on articles like this that say "this may be too technical" I roll my eyes and think "this is a technical topic, what do you expect?" but the whole section on the syntax of URIs seems to be really gory detail. I work with URIs (actually IRIs now which is the more recent term but essentially the same thing) every day and I've never gotten into that kind of detail. I haven't read the section carefully but my initial reaction was is it even necessary to get into that much detail? That kind of detail seems more relevant to a wikibook or blog not an encyclopedia that is for a general audience. I'm going to look at the whole article in more detail and try to address some of the tags but I just wanted to see if other people had opinions on that syntax section, if it should even be kept? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I just noticed at the top that this article was listed as a Good Article by the Engineering task force. Also, as I read the syntax section it looks well written, I actually learned some things so my preference now is to keep it unless others strongly disagree. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree about the fact of keeping all technical details because URIs are something that nowadays more than one billion of people surfing Internet / the web have to manage. I mean that even a non technical user using only a browser might find very useful certain explanations in order to avoid mistakes or misunderstandings (i.e. many products have references / links to web sites using URIs, etc.). I have added a "NOTE" to "path" item about the "pathinfo" sub-part of an http URI in order to make more understandable the links to "clean URL" and "slug". --Ade56facc 15:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)