[fpc-devel] URIParser is not up to spec
Hi, I have to deal with complex URL's in a new part in my project, and thought I would take advantage of the already existing URIParser unit in FPC. At closer inspection I noticed that the URIParser is not up to RFC-3986 specs. Even some of the terminology and values used in URIParser is different to the official RFC's. Would anybody mind if I updated the URIParser unit to be more correct, or is it the FPC pereference to leave it as it is, and I'll make my own amendments for my project. http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt Pay particular attention to section 3 (Syntax Components). http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3 Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] URIParser is not up to spec
19.09.2012 11:45, Graeme Geldenhuys пишет: Hi, I have to deal with complex URL's in a new part in my project, and thought I would take advantage of the already existing URIParser unit in FPC. At closer inspection I noticed that the URIParser is not up to RFC-3986 specs. Even some of the terminology and values used in URIParser is different to the official RFC's. Would anybody mind if I updated the URIParser unit to be more correct, or is it the FPC pereference to leave it as it is, and I'll make my own amendments for my project. http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt Originally uriParser code was written to handle only URLs, without RFC3986 in mind. Later I updated it so the logic became closer to RFC3986, but had to keep URI syntax components as is in order to preserve compatibility with existing code. So I think if we go after strict RFC compliance, we should introduce a new unit and deprecate an old one. Regards, Sergei ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] URIParser is not up to spec
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Sergei Gorelkin wrote: 19.09.2012 11:45, Graeme Geldenhuys пишет: Hi, I have to deal with complex URL's in a new part in my project, and thought I would take advantage of the already existing URIParser unit in FPC. At closer inspection I noticed that the URIParser is not up to RFC-3986 specs. Even some of the terminology and values used in URIParser is different to the official RFC's. Would anybody mind if I updated the URIParser unit to be more correct, or is it the FPC pereference to leave it as it is, and I'll make my own amendments for my project. http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt Originally uriParser code was written to handle only URLs, without RFC3986 in mind. Later I updated it so the logic became closer to RFC3986, but had to keep URI syntax components as is in order to preserve compatibility with existing code. So I think if we go after strict RFC compliance, we should introduce a new unit and deprecate an old one. I agree. Michael.___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
