4 ms·
Honestly to hell with the WHATWG's weird pseudo-standard. Backslashes? Five forward slashes? No one is sending those URLs around, and if they are, they should f
by phyzome 3y ago
Honestly to hell with the WHATWG's weird pseudo-standard. Backslashes? Five forward slashes? No one is sending those URLs around, and if they are, they should fix it. The only thing that needs to deal with that kind of malformed URL is the browser's address bar. If browsers want to do fixups on broken URLs at that point, they should feel free to, but it shouldn't pollute an entire spec.
(It's not even a real standard -- it's a "living standard", which means it just changes randomly and there's no way to actually say "yes, you're compliant with that".)
- notso411 3y ago[dead]
- domenicd 3y agoIt's always been extremely funny to me how arguments like this and from the curl author go. "Yes, I had to change curl away from strictly accepting two slashes, for web compatibility. But `while(slash) { advance_parser() }`? That's completely unreasonable! `while(slash && ++i <= 3)` is so much better, and works almost as well!" Ok, whatever... As for your claim about living standards, I'd encourage you to read https://whatwg.org/faq#living-standard https://whatwg.org/faq#living-standard
- phyzome 3y agoI don't think there's anything new and interesting in that FAQ. It describes what they mean by a Living Standard, but it doesn't mean they're not running a treadmill operation. They seem to be making reference to things like the RFC system, but those get updated too.