Message 350687 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub , and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

In-reply-to
Author	nicktimko
Recipients	Jeremy.Hylton, maggyero, nicktimko, orsenthil
Date	2019年08月28日.18:59:13
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1567018753.72.0.988034942926.issue37969@roundup.psfhosted.org>

Content
Looking at the history, the line in the docs used to say > ... (for example, an empty query (the draft states that these are equivalent). which was changed to "the RFC" in April 2006 https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/ad5177cf8da#diff-5b4cef771c997754f9e2feeae11d3b1eL68-R95 The original language was added in February 1995 https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/a12ef9433baf#diff-5b4cef771c997754f9e2feeae11d3b1eR48-R51 So "the draft" probably meant the draft of RFC-1738 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738#section-3.3 which is kinda vague on it. It didn't help that rewording it as "the RFC" later when there are 3+ RFCs referenced in the lib docs, one of which obsoleted the another RFC and definitely changed the meaning of the loose "?". The draft of 2396 always seemed to have the opposite wording you point out, at least back in draft 07 (September 2004): https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-07#section-6.2.3 The draft 06 (April 2004) was silent on the matter https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-06#section-6.2.3

Content

Looking at the history, the line in the docs used to say 
> ... (for example, an empty query (the draft states that these are equivalent).
which was changed to "the RFC" in April 2006 https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/ad5177cf8da#diff-5b4cef771c997754f9e2feeae11d3b1eL68-R95
The original language was added in February 1995 https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/a12ef9433baf#diff-5b4cef771c997754f9e2feeae11d3b1eR48-R51
So "the draft" probably meant the draft of RFC-1738 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738#section-3.3 which is kinda vague on it. It didn't help that rewording it as "the RFC" later when there are 3+ RFCs referenced in the lib docs, one of which obsoleted the another RFC and definitely changed the meaning of the loose "?".
The draft of 2396 always seemed to have the opposite wording you point out, at least back in draft 07 (September 2004): https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-07#section-6.2.3 The draft 06 (April 2004) was silent on the matter https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-06#section-6.2.3

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2019年08月28日 18:59:13	nicktimko	set	recipients: + nicktimko, orsenthil, Jeremy.Hylton, maggyero
2019年08月28日 18:59:13	nicktimko	set	messageid: <1567018753.72.0.988034942926.issue37969@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019年08月28日 18:59:13	nicktimko	link	issue37969 messages
2019年08月28日 18:59:13	nicktimko	create

homepage