According to the IETF stds directory rfc2396 has been obsoleted by
RFC3986:
http://www.ietf.org/download/rfc-index.txt
2396 Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax. T.
Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter. August 1998. (Format:
TXT=83639 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC3986) (Updates RFC1808, RFC1738)
(Updated by RFC2732) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)
Suggest we update the Hierarchical Profile 3.0 with RFC3986 in refs
section and a number of places in the doc that refs it. The entry for
rfc 3986 in above directory says:
3986 Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax. T.
Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter. January 2005. (Format:
TXT=141811 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2732, RFC2396, RFC1808) (Updates
RFC1738) (Also STD0066) (Status: STANDARD)
I don't believe there are any changes in 3986 that impact the current
spec.
However, there are a few minor spelling corrections (multiple instances
of missing 2nd 'r' in 'hierarchical') in section 2.2.
Also, I recommend changing lines 208-210 (actually only change is on
210), which currently say:
Hierarchical URIs with slashes are of the following form.
<scheme> “://” <authority> “/” <pathname>
To:
Hierarchical URIs with slashes are of the following form.
<scheme> “://” [<authority>] “/” [<pathname>]
where the brackets around authority and pathname more accurately
reflect the fact that these variables may be empty. This also utilizes
the syntax usage that is specified in the Terminology section lines
158-160 and is consistent with the usage of brackets on line 216, which
would mean that if a pathname is present it must include a non-empty
rootname.
(However, I suppose one could argue that a variable that can be empty
is not the same as one that is optional, but I think that would be more
likely to be confusing than saying a variable that can be empty is
effectively optional.)
Thanks,
Rich