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

As the one who started this thread, I'd like to hook on this bit:

> a short, concise, and easy to follow parsing algorithm; one that is separate from resolution and normalisation.

Indeed this would go a long way. One useful property of a BNF style grammar is that it allows people yo develop their own operations over URLs without needing a full implementation. For instance, to answer the question "is this a valid URL?" should not require normalisation, resolution, editing, or any knowledge of the various pieces of a URL beyond the basic syntax. It should be extricable. And it should especially be extricable from permissive parsing fallback that attempts to correct invalid URLs and convert them to valid ones.

My core view is that the specification, whichever one or ones end up being the future, provide tools to help us understand URLs and the sort of operations one might do on them, including how to extend them. The WhatWG specification feels to me less like a specification defining what a URL is and how to use it, as an implementation guide on how to write a particular kind of programming interface for working with URLs. 


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/479#issuecomment-1234647851
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/479/1234647851@github.com>