- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 10:34:01 +0100
- To: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net> wrote: > If this is of use to you I'm happy to hear your suggestions and make > adjustments to the test cases, format, or approach. I do have plans to > narrate each test case with a descriptive comment, reduce duplication, > and add more distinct cases. This is super awesome. Glad you continued with this. I have a few generic points for now: * No special handling for IPv4. IPv4 should work the same as domain names. I.e. the host of http://192/ is 192, not 0.0.0.192. * It's still a bit unclear to me what the best solution is for fragment identifiers. Whether they should be percent escaped or not and whether that should differ between .href and .hash. * IDNA is a rathole. * Ports other than 0-9 will cause a parsing failure (e.g. 𝟖 will do that). When are you planning on doing the further cleanup you mention? At some point I can try to go through them in detail and suggest fixes (e.g. via a pull request). -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 24 November 2012 09:37:37 UTC