|
| Full stop in URL gets truncated |
 |
Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:14:37 +000 |
Try this one:
New Uri("http://www.site.com/folder./").ToString
Result: http://www.site.com/folder/ (full stop gone!)
I have a list of URLs that I request via HttpWebRequest but the ones with full
stop in the end of the folder always get 404 error for obvious reasons :(
Why is the full stop disappearing and how can I stop this behaviour.
I've been struggling with this for a whole day so I would really appreciate any
help. Thanks!
|
| Post Reply
|
| Re: Full stop in URL gets truncated |
 |
Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:31:23 +000 |
Interesting. It appears to be a mistake in the Uri class implementation.
Microsoft's documentation for the URI class
(http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.uri.aspx) references the IETF's
RFC 2396 and RFC 3986 which appear to allow the
scheme you you are providing.
FROM RFC 3986
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt):
Each URI begins with a scheme name that refers to a specification for
assigning identifiers within that scheme. As such, the URI syntax is
a federated and extensible naming system wherein each scheme's
specification may further restrict the syntax and semantics of
identifiers using that scheme.
Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters beginning with a
letter and followed by any combination of letters, digits, plus
("+"), period ("."), or hyphen ("-"). Although
schemes are case-
insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and documents that
specify schemes must do so with lowercase letters. An implementation
should accept uppercase letters as equivalent to lowercase in scheme
names (e.g., allow "HTTP" as well as "http") for the sake
of
robustness but should only produce lowercase scheme names for
consistency.
scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" /
"." )
|
| Post Reply
|
| Re: Full stop in URL gets truncated |
 |
Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:09:41 +000 |
Thanks for your answer.
I read the RFC 3986 and it
confirms that my scheme should be possible (Page 36)
Unfortunately it seems that the URI class does not follow the RFC standard
precisely. Can anyone offer a workaround for this issue?
|
| Post Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|