- From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:26:43 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-iri@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 18.04.2011 18:08, Adam Barth wrote: >>> I think it would be extremely useful to have a comparison how those tests >>> with absolute URIs would be parsed by the regexp in the URI spec: >>> >>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.B> >>> >>> Are there differences? And if there are, do UAs agree on what to do with >>> those inputs? >> >> Is there an easy way to execute that regular expression? That >> document doesn't provide a reference defining the semantics of the >> regular expression. It alludes to POSIX regular expressions. Is >> there some way to write a POSIX program that executes it? In any >> case, I'd be happy to consider it if someone can explain to me how to >> run it over the test suite mentioned above. > > How about just using JS regexps, and see where we can get from there? Is that correct? JS regular expressions are Perl-compatible regular expressions. Is that the same as POSIX regular expressions in this context? Adam >>>> Test cases are especially helpful because they allow us to compare the >>>> behavior of different user agents and will ensure that the net result >>>> of this process is interoperable behavior. >>> >>> <brokenrecord>There are more components than UAs processing >>> URIs</brokenrecord>. So, for example, we should test with libraries >>> (jave.net.URI, the .NET equivalent etc...) as well. >> >> Two points: >> >> 1) We're not talking about URIs. > > Then let's be clear what we're talking about (note java.net.URI indeed > parses IRIs). > >> 2) I'd be happy to consider other implementations if someone would be >> willing to send me the results of running the test suite over those >> implementations. >> >> Ideally, such a contributor would collate the results by test, as in >> >> https://github.com/abarth/url-spec/blob/master/tests/gurl-results/by-browser.txt, >> which makes it easy to compare different behavior and understand how >> implementations differ today. > > I'll put that on my TODO list :-) > > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 17:27:42 UTC