- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:18:59 +0200
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- CC: public-iri@w3.org
On 18.04.2011 18:08, Adam Barth wrote: > ... >> I think it would be extremely useful to have a comparison how those tests >> with absolute URIs would be parsed by the regexp in the URI spec: >> >> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.B> >> >> Are there differences? And if there are, do UAs agree on what to do with >> those inputs? > > Is there an easy way to execute that regular expression? That > document doesn't provide a reference defining the semantics of the > regular expression. It alludes to POSIX regular expressions. Is > there some way to write a POSIX program that executes it? In any > case, I'd be happy to consider it if someone can explain to me how to > run it over the test suite mentioned above. How about just using JS regexps, and see where we can get from there? >>> Test cases are especially helpful because they allow us to compare the >>> behavior of different user agents and will ensure that the net result >>> of this process is interoperable behavior. >> >> <brokenrecord>There are more components than UAs processing >> URIs</brokenrecord>. So, for example, we should test with libraries >> (jave.net.URI, the .NET equivalent etc...) as well. > > Two points: > > 1) We're not talking about URIs. Then let's be clear what we're talking about (note java.net.URI indeed parses IRIs). > 2) I'd be happy to consider other implementations if someone would be > willing to send me the results of running the test suite over those > implementations. > > Ideally, such a contributor would collate the results by test, as in > https://github.com/abarth/url-spec/blob/master/tests/gurl-results/by-browser.txt, > which makes it easy to compare different behavior and understand how > implementations differ today. I'll put that on my TODO list :-) Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 16:19:30 UTC