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

@becarpenter My comment about implementation was with respect to
>  In case of it is of interest, I also automated tests of the spec against each of the 4 browser bases at the time (Ie was still relevant) as well as other languages and libraries.  I lost interest shortly after when...  I was able to identify 4 tests, one for each browser where the other three browsers agreed on the result and the odd browser was different.  I posted the results and solicited feedback from each browser and got... crickets.  No response whatsoever.  To say that the spec aspired to be implemented is too generous in my opinion.  The browsers at the time didn't see URL/URI/whatever compatibility as a priority.

The problem is that traditionally, the URL has been a user interface element AND a protocol element (a dessert topping AND a floor wax).  But URLs are hidden more and more.

If the implementation adoption of this living standard hasn't moved much in 7 years, it is hard to believe the aspirational goals should be retained. If this were a spec for things that look like URLs that you can type in the address line when you don't mean to search, maybe. But the folks demanding more compatibility are used to URLs breaking anyway.
People building APIs based on URLs and curl and wget etc need a clear simple spec. WHATWG should treat URLs more like HTTP.




-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/479#issuecomment-1233526815
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/479/1233526815@github.com>