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

Thanks for that. We can hopefully keep things more productive moving forward.

At this point I think the thread's original action item (from my OP) still stands, to clarify the authoring conformance requirements for "valid" URLs, versus the user agent requirements for parsing URLs.

Besides that, there seems to be some interest from some people in getting browsers (and other software in the ecosystem that wishes to be compatible with browsers) to move toward stricter URL parsing. I think my plan at https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/118#issuecomment-218323801 still represents the best path there.

As for the particular issue of more than two slashes, I have very little hope that this can be changed to restrict to two slashes, since software like cURL is already encountering compatibility issues, and we can at least guess that the change from IE11 to Edge to support 3+ slashes might also be compatibility motivated. (Does anyone want to try http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=4182 in Safari tech preview to see if they've changed as well?)

But, of course, more data could be brought to bear, as I outlined in my plan. I personally don't think three slashes is the worst kind of URL possible out of all the weird URLs in https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/url/urltestdata.json (my vote goes to maybe `h\tt\nt\rp://h\to\ns\rt:9\t0\n0\r0/p\ta\nt\rh?q\tu\ne\rry#f\tr\na\rg`) but it seems like a lot of people care about that, so maybe browsers will want to invest effort in measuring that particular use case.

---
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-218353460