On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
You could even make that work, by having a special method for appending a
new key/value pair, and just not making it accessible.
Right, other access methods, like this or a classList-like array, can
always be added later.
On 25/09/2012 01:07 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
I suggest just making it a map from String-[String]. You probably
want a little bit of magic - if the setter receives an array, replace
the current value with it; anything
On 25 sept. 2012, at 13:48, Robin Berjon wrote:
On 25/09/2012 01:07 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
And round-tripping using ; as the separator instead of . I mention this
because I've seen actual production code (more than once) that relied on
this. I have no idea how common it is though. I'm
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
On 25/09/2012 01:07 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
I suggest just making it a map from String-[String]. You probably
want a little bit of magic - if the
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Not necessarily, but that's certainly possible. Personally I would
recommend that we not change the definition of what is conforming from the
current RFC3986/RFC3987 rules, except to the extent that the character
encoding
), and other
parts that are defined in terms of BNF (e.g. constraints on the conetnts
of script elements in certain situations). It's up to Anne.
HTML is far larger and more compositional than URI. I am confident
that, no matter what is specified in the WHATWG New URL Standard, a
formal language exists
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Not necessarily, but that's certainly possible. Personally I would
recommend that we not change the definition of what is conforming from the
current
New URL Standard, a formal
language exists which can describe the structure of conforming
identifiers. If no such formal language can be described, the syntax
specification is likely to be incomplete or unsound.
Just because it's possible to use a formal language doesn't mean it's a
good
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:20 PM, David Sheets kosmo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
FWIW, given that browsers happily do requests to servers with
characters in the URL that are invalid per the RFC (they are not URL
escaped) and
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:18 PM, David Sheets kosmo...@gmail.com wrote:
Always. The appropriate interface is (string * string?) list. Id est,
an association list of keys and nullable values (null is
key-without-value and empty string is empty-value). If you prefer to
not use a nullable value
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:18 PM, David Sheets kosmo...@gmail.com wrote:
Always. The appropriate interface is (string * string?) list. Id est,
an association list of keys and nullable values (null is
key-without-value and
On 26 sept. 2012, at 00:14, David Sheets wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:18 PM, David Sheets kosmo...@gmail.com wrote:
The right approach is probably to expose the results in an object-like form,
as Tab suggests, but to
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:14 PM, David Sheets kosmo...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking up keys is easy in an association list. Filtering the list
retains ordering. Appending to the list is well-defined. Folding into
a dictionary is trivial and key merging can be defined according to
the author's URL
On 9/25/12 6:53 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(Of course, a separate method could exist to get access to the underlying
order, if and when real use cases turn up that actually need it, and it's
not unlikely that there are use cases--but so far they haven't been
raised.
The obvious use case is
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/25/12 6:53 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(Of course, a separate method could exist to get access to the underlying
order, if and when real use cases turn up that actually need it, and it's
not unlikely that there are use
On 9/25/12 10:13 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The obvious use case is constructing a URI with a given query by
hand, right?
If you already have the a=1b=2 string, you can just assign it to
.search and not use the prepared-query-parameters interface at all.
I was thinking more like you
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/25/12 10:13 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The obvious use case is constructing a URI with a given query by
hand, right?
If you already have the a=1b=2 string, you can just assign it to
.search and not use the
On 9/25/12 10:36 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You usually don't care about the resulting order in that case, right?
It's not uncommon for servers to depend on a particular order of
parameters in the query string and totally fail when the ordering is
different. Especially the sort of servers
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/25/12 10:36 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You usually don't care about the resulting order in that case, right?
It's not uncommon for servers to depend on a particular order of
parameters in the query string and totally
On 9/25/12 11:15 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
What this doesn't allow is creating things like a=1b=2a=3
Ah. That should be relatively unlikely (though forms with checkboxes in
them can in fact lead to query strings like that).
-Boris
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Glenn Maynard wrote:
What this doesn't allow is creating things like a=1b=2a=3. You can
create a=1a=2b=3 (url.query.a = [1,2]; url.query.b = 3), but
there's no way to split the keys (a, b, a). This is the limitation we
were really talking about. This seems unlikely
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
The kind of predictability we have for the HTML parser, I want to have for the
URL parser as well.
Yes, please!!
--tobie
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Alexandre Morgaut
alexandre.morg...@4d.com wrote:
Would the URLUtil interface replace the URL decomposition IDL attributes of
the Location interface?
-
Le 21 sept. 2012 à 17:16, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
I took a crack at defining URLs: http://url.spec.whatwg.org/
Very cool.
On cite attributes, I'm using urn:isbn:
blockquote cite=urn:isbn:2-7073-1038-7
pJ'aime la liberté. J'aime être responsable
de mes actes. J'aime comprendre
2012-09-24 12:47, Karl Dubost wrote:
On cite attributes, I'm using urn:isbn:
blockquote cite=urn:isbn:2-7073-1038-7
pJ'aime la liberté. J'aime être responsable
de mes actes. J'aime comprendre ce que je
fais… Et, cependant, je donne mon accord
à ce marché bizarre./p
On 24 sept. 2012, at 11:34, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Could the search property have a key/value mapping?
ex:
http://test.com?param1=value1
- var value1 = url.search.param1
search as window.location could still be usable as a string
I have been thinking about introducing a .query attribute
On 24 sept. 2012, at 14:08, Alexandre Morgaut wrote:
sms:+15105550101?body=hello%20there
{
host: +15105550101,
hostname: +15105550101,
href: +15105550101?body=hello%20there,
parameters: {
body: hello there
}
pathname: ,
Le 24 sept. 2012 à 12:08, Jukka K. Korpela a écrit :
It also means that the only immediately available source information for a
quotation will be an ISBN in URL format. So, for example, working offline,
you won't see even the title and the author. Would the quotation even satisfy
the legal
On 9/24/12 4:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Say you have a href=data:test/; the concern is what e.g.
a.protocol and a.pathname would return here. For invalid URLs they
would return : and respectively. If we treat this as a valid URL
you would get data: and test. In Gecko I get http: and . If I
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I have been thinking about introducing a .query attribute that would
return a special interface for this purpose, but what the right API
should be seems somewhat tricky. Adam and Erik came up with a solution
that
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Alexandre Morgaut alexandre.morg...@4d.com
wrote:
Shouldn't this document have references on some of the URL related RFCs:
The plan is to obsolete the RFCs. But yes, I will add some
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
I suggest just making it a map from String-[String]. You probably
want a little bit of magic - if the setter receives an array, replace
the current value with it; anything else, stringify then wrap in an
array and
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
I suggest just making it a map from String-[String]. You probably
want a little bit of magic - if the setter receives an array, replace
the current
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, David Sheets wrote:
Is there an issue with defining WHATWG-URL syntax as a grammar extension
to the URI syntax in RFC3986?
In general, BNF isn't very useful for defining the parsing rules when you
also need to handle non-conforming content in a correct manner. Really it
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, David Sheets wrote:
Is there an issue with defining WHATWG-URL syntax as a grammar extension
to the URI syntax in RFC3986?
In general, BNF isn't very useful for defining the parsing rules when you
also
This is Anne's spec, so I'll let him give more canonical answers, but:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, David Sheets wrote:
Your conforming WHATWG-URL syntax will have production rule alphabets
which are supersets of the alphabets in RFC3986.
Not necessarily, but that's certainly possible. Personally
Excellent work.
Did you use tests while making this and if so did you save them? It might be
worthwhile to check all the browsers against the spec.
Cheers,
Maciej
On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I took a crack at defining URLs:
Thanks Anne, I'd appreciate to be able to easily get a URLUtil interface from a
string UTL without doing some nasty hacks
I have a ew questions
Would the URLUtil interface replace the URL decomposition IDL attributes of
the Location interface?
-
I took a crack at defining URLs: http://url.spec.whatwg.org/
At the moment it defines parsing (minus domain names / IP addresses)
and the JavaScript API (minus the query manipulation methods proposed
by Adam Barth). It defines things like setting .pathname to hello
world (notice the space), it
On 9/21/12 11:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
It is based on the
various URL code paths found in WebKit and Gecko and supports the \ as
/ in various places because it seemed better for compatibility.
Or worse, depending on your use cases...
* data URLs; in Gecko these appear to be parsed as
On 2012-09-21 17:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I took a crack at defining URLs: http://url.spec.whatwg.org/
At the moment it defines parsing (minus domain names / IP addresses)
and the JavaScript API (minus the query manipulation methods proposed
by Adam Barth). It defines things like setting
41 matches
Mail list logo
