On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > Can you be specific? What is different between those RFCs?
I finally got around to trying to backport some of the additional urljoin tests from http://bugs.python.org/issue1500504 (specifically, the additional ones Mike Brown provided), but got tripped up by the behavioural changes between the earlier RFCs and RFC 3986 regarding the way ".." is handled. Even in test_urlparse, a bunch of the normative tests from RFC 3986 are commented out because they fail (by design) when run through urllib.parse.urljoin. Some of the additional tests also fail because our urljoin implementation has a whitelist of schemas that support relative references, whereas 3986 expects relative references to work for unknown schemas as well. There's actually quite a few more terminology changes as well (as Senthil pointed out in his email), but it was specifically the failing test cases for urljoin semantics that bit me again yesterday. The problem is that it is quite a lot of work to get fully general URI parsing to work correctly, but the overlap with legacy URL parsing is large enough that many (most?) use cases in practice work just fine with the older RFC semantics. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
