- From: Roy T. Fielding <roy.fielding@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 20:26:51 +0000
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
On Dec 12, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > I hope that you find the following page to be easier to digest: > > https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/test-results/ > > With this page, you can do more than simply compare user agents against the reference implementation of the URL Standard. You can compare one browser against other browsers. You can compare Perl against Python. If you feel that there is a RFC 3986 compliant application in the set, you can compare it against the reference implementation. Nice, but it would be a lot better if abnormal URL references were grouped separately from normal references. Many of the "test failures" are decisions by one or more of the implementations to reject a reference due to potential security problems (e.g., TCP well-known ports [0-53] that might be explicitly forbidden regardless of parsing) or syntax that is specifically forbidden by the scheme. Those should not be considered parser differences. What are you using to extract the result? Beware that some implementations will parse and provide one URL in a javascript API, but will actually fix or reject that URL before using it via HTTP. RFC3986 only defines what would be sent. Also, please feel free to include my RFC test cases, located at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/labs/webarch/trunk/uri/test/ ....Roy
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 20:27:53 UTC