Re: [whatwg/url] Provide a succinct grammar for valid URL strings (#479)

Yeah, the bare minimum would be a grammar for **valid** WHATWG URLs. But that's very simple, and not very useful.
The main goal of the WHATWG is to specify error recovery. My goal is to rephrase that, to reconcile it with the RFCs.  

So. It needs two grammars, a rewritten chapter on Reference Resolution including the 'force' op, and...

> Write about the encoding-normal form, parameterise it by component-dependent character sets, so that the percentEncodeSets of the WHATWG standard can be plugged into the comparison ladder nicely.
> To what end? For what audience? Going forward, shouldn't we aim toward UTF-8?

The WHATWG standard specifies different character sets that must be encoded per component(-type). So this is about a section analogous to the RFC3986 [Percent Encoding Normalisation][pct]. The WHATWG behaviour is much more complex. 

[pct]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-6.2.2.2

> I hope you take my comments as constructive.

I do, and I need guidance, especially when it comes to process and organisation. Thank you. 


-- 
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/479#issuecomment-865688665