On 18 November 2015 at 07:10, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 November 2015 at 17:32, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> > wrote: >>> The only place where URIs are used seem to be the "urlspec" rule, and >>> probably you can accept any opaque string there. >> >> Uhm, why are you making this suggestion? What problem will we solve by >> using a proxy rule? > > I think the point here is syntax vs semantics. It is simpler to parse > if we make the *syntax* state that an opaque string is allowed here. > The *semantics* can then say that the string is to be handled as a > URL, meaning that any string that isn't a valid URL will fail when we > try to pass it to urllib or whatever. > > The only advantage of *parsing* it as a URL is that we get to reject > foo::::/bar:baz as a syntax error. But we'd still reject foo:/bar as > an invalid URL (unknown protocol) later in the processing, so why > bother trying to trap the specific error of "doesn't look like a URL" > early? > > By including the URL syntax, we're mandating that conforming > implementations *have* to trap malformed URLs early, and can't defer > that validation to the URL library being used to process the URL.
I don't understand how we're mandating that. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
