- From: Karl <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 05:48:51 -0700
- To: whatwg/url <url@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <whatwg/url/pull/655/c950890130@github.com>
(Apologies for not responding sooner; I've been away. I didn't expect all this activity! 😅) Thank you so much @annevk! This is really fantastic; it seems to have involved coordinating a lot of updates to other standards, which can't have been easy, but I think it makes this standard significantly better. The motivation for #634 was so I could explain to users of my URL library which operations may fail and why, without inventing my own terminology that they can't search for on the web. This helps make a lot of the limitations around URLs with opaque paths much less... well, opaque: - Why can't I split this URL's path in to components? Because it's an opaque string, not a list. - Why can't I set a hostname on this URL? Because it would be separated from the path with a "/", turning the path in to a list. - Why can't I resolve a relative reference against this URL? Because its path is opaque; we can't split it up to add/remove components. Which is a lot better than saying "because the parser decided to set some flag which forbids it". So I definitely appreciate it, and I'm sure my users will also very much appreciate it. -- 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/655#issuecomment-950890130
Received on Monday, 25 October 2021 12:49:04 UTC