Re: [whatwg/url] Proposal of .toString({ concise: true }) for nicer output with empty values (#469)

So to sum up, this proposal is closed because we want to discourage people to use a concise version of url, e.g. `a&b=non-empty&c` (although semantically correct and equivalent as per spec) and enforce them to always use e.g. `a=&b=non-empty&c=`?

I am asking because my proposal was just a non breaking extension and there is no alternative proposal.
I understand that changing spec to support distinction of "nullable" values may be tricky or undesirable
However, I am not clear why we want users to enforce using one url style only if the other style is semantically correct.

-- 
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/469#issuecomment-627769607