- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:44:54 -0500
- To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, whatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 11/18/2014 06:37 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > >> As a final note, the reference implementation has a list of known >> differences from the published standard: >> >> intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html > > Hmm, so this isn't really a reference implementation of the published > standard then? Indeed looking at the code it seems to not follow the > algorithms in the spec at all :(. That's a bit unfortunate if the > goal is to test that the spec is accurate. Let me help by connecting the dots. Bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25946 is open to rewrite the URL parser. Comment 8 and 9 endorse the following work in progress: http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html Just today, I integrated my Anolis to Bikeshed work, which is a prerequisite for completing this. The reference implementation is a faithful attempt to implement the reworked parsing logic. In fact, parts of the specification and parts of the reference implementation are generated from a single file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rubys/url/peg.js/url.pegjs Hopefully shortly this all will land in the live version of the spec, meanwhile it attempts to "skate to where the puck will be". In each case of a known difference in published results, I've linked to rationale for the change (generally to an indication that Anne agrees). I hope this helps. - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2014 23:45:18 UTC