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

I'm new here (since Larry Masinter mentioned this effort on a thread in the IETF). I want to point out that although the WHATWG web site claims to obsolete the IETF RFCs, it can't do that -- only the IETF can obsolete its own RFCs. So _whatever_ happens here, there will still be two (or maybe three) grammars until somebody reconciles them.
I have skin in the game. I'm a co-author of https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02.html which has passed WG Last Call in the IETF and which will be in IETF-wide review shortly. In the course of that work, which extends the syntax of both RFC3986 and RFC3987, I've dived into the code of one well-known browser and reached the conclusion that there is no such thing there as a syntax-driven parser. I also patched the code of _wget_ to implement the draft. Same thing. It's all ad hoc code in multiple programming languages. I don't know if that's typical of all the mainstream browsers, but it seems to me that the present style of description at WHATWG matches the way people code. That's the root of the problem between WHATWG and the IETF. It would of course be great to bridge the gap.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/479#issuecomment-1232383528
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/479/1232383528@github.com>