Skip to content

In the docs, mention ongoing URI standardization efforts #2

Description

@mjb2010

WHATWG has their own URL specification. (It is a URI spec, but they felt strongly that the term URI was too pedantic, so they use URL in the same loose way that everybody else does.)

People involved in that effort have mentioned that the WHATWG / HTML5 approach is to dodge the shortcomings of grammar-based standards like RFC 3986, so they are unconcerned about precisely describing what a URL is or how to make one but rather more just how to interpret it:

the main reason why this spec exists is the fact that it defines error handling rigorously. This is precisely what a formal grammar that defines what a valid URL is cannot do.

Naturally, this does not sit well with all implementers, who feel it should be possible to have the best of both worlds, defining what is expected in a way that works with parsers, yet still robustly handling real-world input.

I would like to mention something in the docs here about this stuff, even if just to say that until there is another standard for what a URL is, my tool will only support RFC 3986 / STD 66.

(Also this issue serves as a reminder to myself to check in on their progress.)

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions