W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2014

Re: [whatwg] URL: spec review - basic_parser

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:49:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78hopjC2L8WCyqcKQ9C28EOTZhrA0ZyqT-4hay-eYOBUTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: whatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> At the present time, all I can say is that the https://url.spec.whatwg.org/,
> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/url/, and
> https://github.com/annevk/url are inconsistent.

I recommend not looking at annevk/url.


> To illustrate, try pasting http://f:b/c into:
>
>   http://www.lookout.net/test/url/url-liveview.html
>
> Relevant excerpt from that page:
>
>       var url = new URL(input, base);
>       urlHref.textContent = url.href;
>
> And the results for http://f:b/c after applying urltestparser.js against
> urltestdata.js is as follows:
>
> {"input":"http://f:b/c","base":"http://example.org/foo/bar","scheme
> ":"","username":"","password":null,"host":"","port":"","path":"","query":"","fra
> gment":"","href":"http://f:b/c","protocol":":","search":"","hash":""}

That seems correct. You hit "b" in the port state and that will return
failure (from memory, did not check).

How does this not match the specification?


> I'll look further into why the results provided by Opera and
> https://rubygems.org/gems/addressable don't appear to match RFC 3491.

Note that RFC 3491 is not a normative dependency for any of the algorithms.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 09:49:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:24 UTC