Re: [whatwg/url] Editorial: clarify URL validity (PR #666)

@domenic commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1170,7 +1170,9 @@ unified model would be, please file an issue.
 
  <li><p>The <a>URL serializer</a> takes a <a for=/>URL</a> and returns an <a>ASCII string</a>. (If
  that string is then <a lt="URL parser">parsed</a>, the result will <a for=url>equal</a> the <a
- for=/>URL</a> that was <a lt="URL serializer">serialized</a>.)
+ for=/>URL</a> that was <a lt="URL serializer">serialized</a>.) The output of the
+ <a>URL serializer</a> is not always a <a>valid URL string</a>. I.e., not all <a for=/>URLs</a> are
+ valid.

I don't think this "i.e." sentence makes sense. "Valid" is a concept that only applies to URL strings. This seems to be introducing a new concept of valid URL record, which IMO would need a more detailed definition.

> @@ -1170,7 +1170,9 @@ unified model would be, please file an issue.
 
  <li><p>The <a>URL serializer</a> takes a <a for=/>URL</a> and returns an <a>ASCII string</a>. (If
  that string is then <a lt="URL parser">parsed</a>, the result will <a for=url>equal</a> the <a
- for=/>URL</a> that was <a lt="URL serializer">serialized</a>.)
+ for=/>URL</a> that was <a lt="URL serializer">serialized</a>.) The output of the
+ <a>URL serializer</a> is not always a <a>valid URL string</a>. I.e., not all <a for=/>URLs</a> are

It might be worth adding a pointer to https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/379, because I am still hoping we can change this.

-- 
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/pull/666#pullrequestreview-785815390