Re: [whatwg/url] Strictness on Port doesn't conform to URL/URI RFCs (Issue #883)

the-moisrex left a comment (whatwg/url#883)

I've been trying to implement WHATWG URL for a while now, and I must say even though this sounds nice, I disagree.

URL has become unbelievably bloated and slow, we need to add more restrictions in my opinion and not reduce them. For example, if we simply didn't have `@` in the URLs, almost all URL parsers would be able to speed things up.

I suggest you use something like this:

```
wttp://[[userAddress]-[userSignature]-][contractAddress/domainName]-[chainId]/[path][...standard URL queries&hash]
```

or using dot as a separator:

```
wttp://[[userAddress].[userSignature].][contractAddress/domainName].[chainId]/[path][...standard URL queries&hash]
```

or with segment name:

```
wttp://[useraddr.[userAddress]-sig.[userSignature]-]contactaddr.[contractAddress/domainName]-id.[chainId]/[path][...standard URL queries&hash]
```

Or numerous other ways.


I also would disagree with the port number being conditionally bigger for non-special-schemes as well if that would be considered since the implementers pretty much have to use the bigger integer type.

Though, this is my opinion, I have no say in WHATWG.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/883#issuecomment-3363855124
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/883/3363855124@github.com>