Hi,
Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. ápr. 17., Cs, 9:22): > Hi > > Am 2025-04-15 23:55, schrieb Máté Kocsis: > > This was one of my (unspoken) ideas as well. I used to think there must > > have been a correct logic > > for percent-decoding of WHATWG components, but if none of us can come > > up > > with a sensible > > idea, then it's best not to try it, I agree. > > Sweet. I believe this was/is the last remaining blocker for the RFC or > is there still anyone else from your side that needs to be discussed? I > need to give the RFC another read once you made the adjustment to remove > the WhatWg raw methods (and adjusted the corresponding explanations), > but I think I'm happy then :-) > No, I also think that was the last one, as I don't have any questions left. Although, we should finalize what the WHATWG getters should be named? I like the explicit "raw" that you suggested, but I can also see that it may be confusing for some people. Altogether I think I prefer adding "raw" so that it's clear that they behave similarly how the raw RFC 3986 getters do. > For the latest changes from Tuesday, I see that you added the > WhatWg-specific `InvalidUrlException`. The `Uri\InvalidUriException` > however still has the `$errors` property. I think you might have > forgotten to remove it, since the Rfc3986 implementation / the base > exception does not expose any errors, right? > I made the changes in the RFC in a hurry, so yes, I forgot to remove the property. Thanks! Máté
