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

@annevk 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

Oh sorry, `\` is not applicable then I think. I got this confused with the people who think all inputs ought to be valid or rejected. Whereas you don't necessarily think all inputs ought to be valid or rejected, but the invalid inputs that are accepted, ought to be transformed to something valid when they are spit out again.

So yeah, the reason for that is mainly encouraging RFC 3986 interop. But I'm not sure anyone is really appreciative of that.

-- 
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#discussion_r733911060