Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard

Excellent work.

Did you use tests while making this and if so did you save them? It might be worthwhile to check all the browsers against the spec.

Cheers,
Maciej

On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> I took a crack at defining URLs: http://url.spec.whatwg.org/
> 
> At the moment it defines parsing (minus domain names / IP addresses)
> and the JavaScript API (minus the query manipulation methods proposed
> by Adam Barth). It defines things like setting .pathname to "hello
> world" (notice the space), it defines what happens if you resolve
> "http:test" against a data URL (you get "http://test/") or
> http://teehee (you get "http://teehee/test"). It is based on the
> various URL code paths found in WebKit and Gecko and supports the \ as
> / in various places because it seemed better for compatibility.
> 
> I'm looking for some feedback/ideas on how to handle various aspects, e.g.:
> 
> * data URLs; in Gecko these appear to be parsed as part of the URL
> layer, because they can turn a URL invalid. Other browsers do not do
> this. Opinions? Should data URLs support .search?
> * In the current text only a select few URLs support host/port/query.
> The rest is solely path/fragment. But maybe we want mailto to support
> query? Should it support host? (mailto supporting e.g. host would also
> mean normalising host via IDNA toASCII and friends. Not sure I'm fond
> of that.)
> * Advice on file URLs would be nice.
> * IDNA: what are your plans? IDNA2003 / IDNA2008 / UTS #46 / something
> else? It would be nice to get agreement on this.
> * Terminology: should we align the terminology with the API or would
> that just be too confusing?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> PS: It also does the query encoding thing correctly for the first time
> ever in the history of URL standards although the wording can probably
> be improved.
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 02:16:20 UTC