RE: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 ([e-mail] from September 2012)

["Manger, James H" <[e-mail]>]

> 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