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: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:14:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78ggmdj6AtZNA14j+-j2WMvkv_juOkV5JZMGmkNjn3P+tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>, 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>
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Manger, James H
<James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:
> 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).

Thanks for pointing that out. I renamed it to "fatal error flag" and
added an issue about the ability to halt on the first (non-fatal)
error. Ian is right that it's not defined yet because conformance is
not defined. And yes, as you say I've yet to figure out if branches in
the parser section is easy enough to do. If it is I think it's
worthwhile because it makes implementing a conformance checker (or
strict parser) much more straightforward.

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 08:15:00 UTC

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