Re: [whatwg/url] Support relative URLs (#531)

> I feel like that there at least should be an API to convert a URL record into a relative URL string.

Right, so the question I was raising is whether that data structure even needs to be a URL record. Unlike what Alwin says, URLs are _not_ simply a data structure of broken-down components which users can manipulate willy-nilly. There are internal invariants which must be upheld to ensure that, for example, serialising that URL record and parsing it again results in an equivalent URL record.

That means, for example, you wouldn't be able to just insert some `"."` or `".."` components in the record's list of path components. Yet those are the sort of components users of a relative URL type are likely most interested in.

In general, I feel it is good practice in software engineering to design and define as little as you can get away with, to solve the problems you actually have, and only add complexity as it becomes necessary, and only if it is worth the cost. Maybe we don't even need to define how you parse a relative URL string in to broken-down components with no base URL as context? Maybe 90% of use-cases can be served by just serialising a programmatically-constructed list of components.

I don't know; I'm just speculating. But I think that's the position we should begin from. Start simple.

> I feel like y’all are just being dismissive of each other’s efforts and interest in helping out, and I feel like that is really counter‐productive. If you truly have the intention of helping, I feel like you should be encouraging each other to both pursue investigations and researching new approaches

Nobody's questioning each other's intentions. But at the same time, if you want to propose a significant expansion of a high-impact industry standard, you should be prepared for some scrutiny. What sort of standard would _not_ thoroughly scrutinise every proposed change or addition?

Throwing a temper tantrum and storming off in a huff as soon as your proposal hits basic questions like: _"are your ideas appropriately scoped for the problem?"_, or _"do you have practical evidence of your proposal solving an issue in a production environment?"_ is not okay. It's an attempt to shut down debate. Obviously I feel bad that Alwin appears to be leaving as a result of my questions, but what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to not ask questions out of fear that he is going to pack up and withdraw his proposals at any moment?

As well as the point about dismissing others work (which didn't happen, by the way; I did mention that his alternative standard _was_ interesting), I think it's important to stress that that sort of behaviour cannot be acceptable. It's a sort of emotional extortion of people who are asking questions - which is _exactly_ what they should be doing, and _exactly_ what we need them to do.

My understanding is that, whilst this is an open and welcoming community, we also have basic standards of conduct and professionalism, designed to allow a fair and healthy debate of the issues. IMHO, if a contributor is unable to meet those standards, it is probably better that they not participate.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/531#issuecomment-1034210823

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/531/1034210823@github.com>