Re: [whatwg/url] Add a neato informative table of various URL pieces (#337)

Hey, those railroad diagrams in that old version of the spec (linked under "merged into the spec" above) are great. Why were they taken out? If that's a long story, we don't need to go into, but the important question is, can we get them put back in?

If the problem is that changes in the spec made the diagrams invalid and it was too much work to update all those detailed diagrams, I understand that. But if that's the case, can we, instead of leaving the diagrams out entirely, put in a summary diagram like the one I [posted above](https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/337#issuecomment-421627310), so the reader at least has something to help them understand the syntax?

The summary diagram I posted above is _roughly_ equivalent to the combination of diagrams at the following locations in the old spec:

- [1.3.1. url(input)](http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html#rule-url)
- [1.3.3. non-relative-url(input)](http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html#rule-non-relative-url)
- [1.3.7. authority(input)](http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html#rule-authority)
- [1.3.18. path(input)](http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html#rule-path)

One problem with my summary diagram that I see by looking at the old spec is that my diagram does not cover the case of relative URLs. The reason for this is that I built that diagram based on the rules in section [4.5. URL serializing](https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url-serializing). I suppose that may have been an error on my part and I should have used the slightly more complex rules in section [4.3. URL writing](https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url-writing). Is there a reason the serialization rules don't include relative URLs?

If there is a decision to use a summary railroad diagram like the one I posted above, then I will correct it to cover relative URLs by recasting it from the rules in section 4.3 or any other set of rules that are the right rules to base the diagram on. On the other hand, it would be even better to take up @rubys's offer to update the more detailed diagrams (if that's what he's offering to do). Best solution would be to include both the detailed diagrams and a summary one.

-- 
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/337#issuecomment-421801780