- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:29:13 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 11/1/14 7:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> On 11/1/14 5:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> It doesn't say that. (We should perhaps try to find some way to make >>> "{scheme}://" syntax work for schemes that are not problematic (e.g. >>> javascript would be problematic). Convincing implementers that it's >>> worth implementing might be trickier.) >> >> How should it change? > > Not sure what you're referring to. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04 > I just gave you one, "%"... E.g. "http://example.org/?%" does not have > an RFC 3986 representation. Here's the output of a URL parser (the one I chose was Firefox): new URL("http://example.com/?%").search "?%" Here's the output of a URI parser: $ ruby -r addressable/uri -e "p Addressable::URI.parse('http://example.org/?%').query" "%" I also assert that such a URL round-trips a URL parse/serialize sequence. - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2014 12:29:39 UTC