W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2012

RE: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-archive@w3.org from September 2012)

From: Manger, James H <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:41:16 +1100
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
CC: Christophe Lauret <clauret@weborganic.com>, 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>
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E114FE0A3DE8@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Manger, James H wrote:
> >
> > 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.

> Well first, the whole point of discussions like this is to work out
> what the specs _should_ say; if the specs were perfect then there
> wouldn't be any need for discussion.
> 
> But second, I believe it's already Anne's intention to add to the
> parsing algorithm the ability to abort whenever the URL isn't
> conforming, he just hasn't done that yet because he hasn't specced
> what's conforming in the first place.

That is good to hear. There is no hint about this in the current text/outline. There is an "invalid" flag in the current text -- but that is for strings that are so broken no error handling can resurrect a URL. There is no mention of a separate "conforming" flag, even if the rules for when to set it are yet to be fixed (though it should have been easy to say conforming=conforming-as-per-rfc3987/3987 if that was the intention).

Assuming this is Anne's intention, then 1 spec for URI/IRI/error-handling would be helpful. I'm not sure that parsing rules with conforming/non-conforming branches would be pretty, but perhaps this isn't necessary if what a conforming URL is is clear from other parts of the spec.

--
James Manger

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 06:42:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC