- From: Manger, James H <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:59:05 +1100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Christophe Lauret <clauret@weborganic.com>
- CC: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] > I think we can agree that the error handling should be, at the option > of the software developer, either to handle the input as defined by the > spec's algorithms, or to abort and not handle the input at all. Currently, I don't think url.spec.whatwg.org distinguishes between strings that are valid URLs and strings that can be interpreted as URLs by applying its standardised error handling. Consequently, error handling cannot be at the option of the software developer as you cannot tell which bits are error handling. This might be why some are unhappy with url.spec.whatwg.org. url.spec.whatwg.org does have separate "Writing" and "Parsing" sections. Perhaps the implicit idea is that any output of the "Writing" section is a valid URL (that all URL-processing software should handle). The "Parsing" section accepts more strings than can be created by the "Writing" section. The difference is the error handling. It's OK for a software developer not to parse this difference if it makes its parser simpler, safer, or that is the way its parser works today. -- James Manger
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 01:59:42 UTC