Re: [whatwg] URL: spec review - basic_parser

On 10/14/2014 05:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>> At the present time, all I can say is that the,
>>, and
>> are inconsistent.
> I recommend not looking at annevk/url.
>> To illustrate, try pasting http://f:b/c into:
>> 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":"","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?

Here's my original statement:

"The expected results are an object that returns the original href, but 
empty values for all other properties.  I don't see this behavior in the 

If you could be so kind as to point out what I am missing, I would 
appreciate it.

>> I'll look further into why the results provided by Opera and
>> don't appear to match RFC 3491.
> Note that RFC 3491 is not a normative dependency for any of the algorithms.

RFC 3491 is a normative dependency for RFC 3490, Internationalizing 
Domain Names in Applications (IDNA).

You said, "per IDNA those are ignored".

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 10:21:51 UTC