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

On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 08:53 -0700, Dexter wrote:
> Why is the fact that most browsers accept an arbitrary number of
> slashes good enough to have a spec which allows that. Why is it
> better to open up the spec to allow all possible options. 
> Hell, most browsers accept any kind of input, and will happily
> trigger a searchengine. But is it wise to include a default search
> engine in the spec, and say that any valid string is a valid url. If
> no host is found lets search on this searchengine?
> That browsers accept an arbitrary number of slashes does not say
> those slashes are sent to the server. That must mean that the browser
> parses any string, and tries to create a valid url from that.

Anything that includes non-standard format should not be accepted at
all, and the user should be presented with an error message telling
them why the URL is invalid, if possible. (And there is no reason for
it not to be possible) The issue with large news sources can be fixed
with server-side code, and browsers should definitely join in shaming
those who do not fix that kind of obvious issue. Promoting laziness and
inefficient design isn't helping anyone.


---
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-218544023