W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2014

Re: [whatwg] [url] Feedback from TPAC

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:29:13 -0400
Message-ID: <5454D219.1010000@intertwingly.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 11/1/14 7:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On 11/1/14 5:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> It doesn't say that. (We should perhaps try to find some way to make
>>> "{scheme}://" syntax work for schemes that are not problematic (e.g.
>>> javascript would be problematic). Convincing implementers that it's
>>> worth implementing might be trickier.)
>>
>> How should it change?
>
> Not sure what you're referring to.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04

> I just gave you one, "%"... E.g. "http://example.org/?%" does not have
> an RFC 3986 representation.

Here's the output of a URL parser (the one I chose was Firefox):

new URL("http://example.com/?%").search
"?%"

Here's the output of a URI parser:

$ ruby -r addressable/uri -e "p 
Addressable::URI.parse('http://example.org/?%').query"
"%"

I also assert that such a URL round-trips a URL parse/serialize sequence.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2014 12:29:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:32 UTC