[webkit-reviews] review denied: [Bug 54271] safari-extension: scheme needs special case-sensitive treatment in KURL : [Attachment 82121] Patch

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

Timothy Hatcher <timothy at apple.com> has denied Eric Seidel <eric at webkit.org>'s
request for review:
Bug 54271: safari-extension: scheme needs special case-sensitive treatment in
KURL
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54271

Attachment 82121: Patch
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=82121&action=review

------- Additional Comments from Timothy Hatcher <timothy at apple.com>
View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=82121&action=review

> Source/WebCore/platform/KURL.cpp:1354
> +	       // safari-extension: host contents are case sensitive (in
violation of RFC 2396).
> +	       // https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54271

No where in RFC 2396 do I see that safari-extension is in violation.

> This authority component is typically defined by an Internet-based
> server or a scheme-specific registry of naming authorities.

And:

> The structure of a registry-based naming authority is specific to the
> URI scheme, but constrained to the allowed characters for an
> authority component.
>
>     reg_name	    = 1*( unreserved | escaped | "$" | "," |
>			   ";" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+" )

And "unreserved" is defined as (expanded) "lowalpha | upalpha | digit | mark".

Only if the scheme uses "Server-based Naming Authority" does the
case-insensitive domain name logic apply.

> Hostnames take the form described in Section 3 of [RFC1034] and section 2.1
of [RFC1123]

So I disagree that "safari-extension" is in violation, and that any domain
canonicalization should only apply to schemes we know treat the athority as
server-based. I would also argue that this should apply to security origin too.
Only the scheme is called out as being case-insensitive for all URIs.