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

Re: [whatwg] questions on URL spec based on reviewing galimatias test results

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:47:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78hf48L87yhs2bbmMq_EK7gkYP1mxiPXaMRQDpGwsvSG2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: whatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "Santiago M. Mola" <santi@mola.io>
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 1) Is the following expected to produce a parse error:
>
> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/urltest-results/4b60e32190 ?
>
> My reading of https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#relative-path-state is that step
> 3.1 indicates a parse error even though later step 1.5.1 replaces the non
> URL code point with a colon.
>
> My proposed reference implementation does not indicate a parse error with
> these inputs, but I could easily add it.

Given the legacy aspect, probably should be an error.


> 2) Is the following expected to product a parse error:
>
> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/urltest-results/bc6ea8bdf8 ?

What is the DNS violation supposed to mean?

I would expect this to change if we decide to parse any numeric host
name into IPv4. Then it would certainly be an error.


> And the following only defines fatal errors (e.g. step 5);
>   https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-host-parser
>
> My proposed reference implementation does indicate a parse error with these
> inputs, but this could easily be removed.

Fatal errors are just worse parse errors. The difference is that a
fatal error can be observed through an API.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 11:47:56 UTC

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