Issue 3091: Illegal Examples                                                                                                                                                                                        (naming_ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: The Sep 01 revision of the INS document (99-09-01) twice shows example
URLs (on page 3-4 and 3-7) that are illegal according to the grammar on
page 3-5. The example on page 3-4 reads

  corbaloc:iiop://1.1@555xyz.com/Prod/TradingService

 However, the grammar allows either the <iiop_default> string `//' or
the <iiop_prot_token> `iiop', but not both. A valid URL can therefore
never contain a <iiop_prot_addr> that starts in `iiop://'.

 So what's correct, the example or the grammar?

Resolution: Typo / Not an Issue
Revised Text: removed "iiop://"'s and replaced with one or the other (":" or "iiop:")
Actions taken:
December 4, 1999: received issue
May 4, 2000: closed, not an issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:29:06 +0100
From: Frank Pilhofer <fp@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
To: issues@omg.org
Subject: Illegal Examples
Message-ID: <19991204142906.A354@rose.fpx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95i
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: k>"e9~/I!!0<b!!7GN!!


 This is a new issue for naming_ftf.

 The Sep 01 revision of the INS document (99-09-01) twice shows
example
URLs (on page 3-4 and 3-7) that are illegal according to the grammar
on
page 3-5. The example on page 3-4 reads

  corbaloc:iiop://1.1@555xyz.com/Prod/TradingService

 However, the grammar allows either the <iiop_default> string `//' or
the <iiop_prot_token> `iiop', but not both. A valid URL can therefore
never contain a <iiop_prot_addr> that starts in `iiop://'.

 So what's correct, the example or the grammar?

	Frank

 
-- 
Frank Pilhofer
fp@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/~fp/