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