java.net.URI and RFC 3986 compliance

[Michael McMahon]

On 10/07/14 09:11, Peter Levart wrote:
> On 07/10/2014 02:50 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
>> Are there parties on this list interested in updating java.net.URI to 
>> RFC3986?
>>
>> Is there anyone here who has previously attempted this?  If so what 
>> issues did you find with regard to backward compatibility?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I think It's good that you started this discussion. Since you already 
> have some experience with RFC3986 and possibly also know the 
> differences to RFC 2396 (I have just started reading both RFCs, so I 
> am in no way a relevant source of information in this area), please 
> feel free to ignore my noob questions...
>
> Would it be possible to add a method to URI, say URI.normalize3986() 
> and leave existing logic of URI unchanged? What could and what 
> couldn't be achieved by that?
>
> Regards, Peter
>

I think the starting point should be a list of the differences, and then 
we can see whether additional methods
would suffice. Apart from anything else, the behavior of each method has 
to be fully specified and documented in the class.
I'll try to locate any relevant history.

But, support for RFC3986 is definitely desirable. I agree also, that it 
shouldn't be predicated on a global switch.
Additional constructors/factory methods would be one approach, but it is 
dependent on what the differences are.

Michael