- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:16:20 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Michael™ Smith <mike@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >>> * Parsing does not actually seem to parse the various components. This >>> seems problematic as e.g. http://test::test/ will yield a valid URL >>> while no browser treats it as such. Not that browsers are perfect, >>> e.g. Safari splits http://[::::::::]/ up into components (treating it >>> as a valid URL). >> >> I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here. It's entirely >> possible that what's in the spec currently is sub-optimal. I don't >> happen to remember this case specifically. > > The specification seems to cover the major parts of URLs, but further > parsing and checking those parts is not done. E.g. checking that a > port is just digits and such. Or that a host actually matches the host > syntax. Or is the idea to just expose those invalid bits in the API > and let some subsystem catch the errors? The spec is just incomplete. :) Adam >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/URL#Parsing >> >> That approach generally looks fine, but I haven't reviewed it in detail. > > K, thanks. No need to review it in detail now. Need to do a lot of > writing first... > > > -- > Anne — Opera Software > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 17:17:27 UTC