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

Re: [whatwg] URL: spec review - basic_parser

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:21:26 -0400
Message-ID: <543CF926.5010806@intertwingly.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: whatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 10/14/2014 05:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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?

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 
spec: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url-parsing"


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
>> 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.

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

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