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

On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 18:04 -0700, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Description of the APIs used, including links to the actual source
> code:
> 
> https://github.com/webspecs/url/tree/develop/evaluate#evaluation-prog
> rams-and-results

Instead of "nodejs", it should be "nodejs-url" or similar, to show that
it is using the url "package".

The "ruby" one is now even more odd, because "addressable" is also listed. Isn't "ruby" "addressable"?

Or is "ruby" the standard library URI, as you'd expect?

"perl" is also confusing, unless you mean the "URI" module (which I'd suspect, since there is a dead link to it on CPAN)

That should definitely be "perl-URI" or "perl-uri".

In addition, I do not believe that galimatias should be listed, but that you should be testing against the Java URL and URI classes. These are the most common, and most actively developed URL and URI parsing classes, and they are also closest to the RFCs which define whats URLs and URIs are.

> 
> The term "correctly" implies a value judgment; I'll decline to go
> there.  At the moment there are specs that are underspecified; specs
> that don't match reality; and implementations that don't match one
> another.  The latter remains true even if one limits oneself to only
> browser implementations, actively maintained browser implementations;
> or even actively maintained browser implementations.  Or alternately
> if you limit yourself to implementations that purport to be faithful
> implementations of the standards.

In this case, "correctly" refers to "ruby" using port 80 when no port
number is specified.

I also don't know what you mean by "specs that don't match reality",
because specs define what implementations should do.. They don't "match
reality".


---
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-219260682