bug#12827: [2.0.6] web client: fails to parse 404 header

[Daniel Hartwig]

On 24 November 2012 23:10, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Personally I am not 100% on this, but I attach it for comment anyway.
>> I will not be able to work on it again for a short while.
>>
>> A quick solution may be to silently introduce just enough to fix the
>> current bug, and worry about the extra predicates, uri-record-type vs.
>> rfc-definition-of-uri, etc. later.
>
> I could come up with a ‘declare-relative-uri-header!’ that would use
> (build-uri xxx #:validate? #f) as a quick fix.
>
> However, it seems to me that your patch is actually fine, and doesn’t
> break compatibility, so I’d rather apply it directly.  Did you have
> other concerns?

The API seems less clean, and it is not immediately clear
that uri? is not the top of the URI-like type hierarchy.  The other
functions only indicate “uri” in their name.  I did not
wish to introduce parallel “build-uri-reference”, etc. for each of
these, and did consider adding #:reference? on some to select
weaker validation.

I think I prefer to keep the base type predicate as uri?, and use
relative-ref? and absolute-uri? to distinguish.  This would mean
deviating from the RFC by:
- permitting fragments in absolute-uri?;
- not requiring a scheme in uri?;

which are both forgivable.

Maybe I am just too fussy!