Re: [whatwg/url] It's not immediately clear that "URL syntax" and "URL parser" conflict (#118)

@domenic Considering how many people write software working with existing URL libraries, wouldn’t it be more useful to define URL as "whatever the majority of tools support" (like the URL libraries in about every language, framework, command line tool, server framework, etc)?

Sure, what users input should be accepted, but considering that the input bars of browsers will also happily accept any text (and, if search is off, prepend an http://www., and append a .com/), is already a sign that maybe the definition here is wrong.

Maybe we need a defined spec for a single correct storage format for an identifier, and additionally an algorithm on how to get to this identifier based on user input.

"Google.com" is not a URL, although users think it is one – seperating the actual identifier and the user-visible representations might be helpful here (especially for people writing tools, as they can then declare "we accept only the globally defined format", and let you use other libraries for transforming user-input into that format).

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/118#issuecomment-218432019