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

valenting left a comment (whatwg/url#883)

My suggestion would just be to use `wttp://` if your new protocol's userinfo, hostname and port matches the same restrictions that the regular URL standard applies for things like http.
Otherwise drop the // and use `wttp:` instead: `wttp:0xDA00006427E534B1Acde93B9E66d8A9d2C66B2d3:0xeb72e700fb2b9ac2c70814a32192ddf011fb27222b21491245d784be8e2c6de021734ce1c2771b2d59b4406e5bac0213a6995fce7caf807e11ef3d6681d4203d1c           @0xe254f0797ed59ce23485e23cf07c24b3bcf02407:137/path/index.html?param=value&param2=value2#anchor`
That way you can parse it any way you want, and any browser/app parsers won't mess with it.

> I am requesting that the WHATWG URL Standard be updated to allow port numbers larger than 65535 for custom schemes, or to remove the 16-bit restriction for non-TCP/IP based protocols.

I don't think it's a good idea to change the URL standard just because some protocol wants to put other things where the port normally goes.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/883#issuecomment-3368400869
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/883/3368400869@github.com>