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

To be honest, I gave up on this specification after https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/87#issuecomment-257250866 , which explicitly rejects RFC 3986 [Normalization and Comparison](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-6) and ostensibly allows servers to treat `/-` vs. `/%2D` vs. `/%2d` as distinct. Such a position is impractical (since "comparison methods are designed to minimize false negatives while strictly avoiding false positives"), but also basically impossible to implement in a world where middleboxes _do_ use [syntax-based](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-6.2.2) and [scheme-based](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-6.2.3) normalization for equivalence comparison.

The problem could be fixed by defining normalization, which should include specifying a [model](https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/87#issuecomment-255510163) for addressing invalid input like `/%%2d%2d%3f` (e.g., `/%25--%3F` or `%25%252d-%3F` or `%25%252d%252d%253f` or …), but given an express desire to avoid that I think it's dead in the water.

-- 
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-338248748