Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127132
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xUb1O20ZDrOQNC=ckFxHUUWSK7sw_njQQzFBd0qgQqoww@mail.gmail.com>
 <dd61999c-1ebd-4765-9add-cd8065968965@gmail.com> <CAOV5rgYZ_s1of-igLFEK7oqqh6=3HeYv0=JvvKvvjkcp0F6Q9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xV67frqOBCvLt73RM7QO86_pu40sHP5h71_kDRbKPtA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1BCB4144-231D-45EA-A914-98EE8F0F503A@automattic.com> <8E614C9C-BA85-45D8-9A4E-A30D69981C5D@automattic.com>
 <CAH5C8xV69pHnSKWJrVB8EQab7vPhcaXAwYezoG6z3Oj7ZkXBaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc5472e39bc607e2c7accc9d2bd6f239@bastelstu.be> <CAH5C8xW_auVf+ig7odhTK8dVWwmXTg4ZVZN-0Fhh4SUBzrWxVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8df04e01-deac-404b-beb7-cd982423db63@bastelstu.be> <CAH5C8xU0JcnmC2Hdd=Hj0CQUaL0-LN=1X8+5-eUbFH3ZMxCvBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <33427cd03035ef084245c44290b56a55@bastelstu.be> <CAH5C8xXwDO6Ui8pLmqoxEguURh97fAaL4CfLK-oitqC85N7+8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <0aa1eefc3941bdea0092e935074daa58@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <0aa1eefc3941bdea0092e935074daa58@bastelstu.be>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:18:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH5C8xU+rnp4e5=CzqhEncRww6nhZ7x1s68NjWtu+HQMpoNZ8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Add WHATWG compliant URL parsing API
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fb71460632f78f01"
From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=)

--000000000000fb71460632f78f01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,



Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2025. =
=C3=A1pr. 17., Cs,
9:22):

> Hi
>
> Am 2025-04-15 23:55, schrieb M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 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!

M=C3=A1t=C3=A9

--000000000000fb71460632f78f01
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div><br></div></div><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=
=3D"gmail_attr">Tim D=C3=BCsterhus &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tim@bastelstu.be">=
tim@bastelstu.be</a>&gt; ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2025. =C3=A1pr. 17., =
Cs, 9:22):<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi<br=
>
<br>
Am 2025-04-15 23:55, schrieb M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis:<br>
&gt; This was one of my (unspoken) ideas as well. I used to think there mus=
t<br>
&gt; have been a correct logic<br>
&gt; for percent-decoding of WHATWG components, but if none of us can come =
<br>
&gt; up<br>
&gt; with a sensible<br>
&gt; idea, then it&#39;s best not to try it, I agree.<br>
<br>
Sweet. I believe this was/is the last remaining blocker for the RFC or <br>
is there still anyone else from your side that needs to be discussed? I <br=
>
need to give the RFC another read once you made the adjustment to remove <b=
r>
the WhatWg raw methods (and adjusted the corresponding explanations), <br>
but I think I&#39;m happy then :-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, =
I also think that was the last one, as I don&#39;t have any questions left.=
 Although,</div><div>we should finalize what=C2=A0the WHATWG getters should=
 be named? I like the explicit &quot;raw&quot;</div><div>that you suggested=
, but I can also see that it may be confusing for some people. Altogether</=
div><div>I think I prefer adding &quot;raw&quot; so that it&#39;s clear tha=
t they behave similarly how the raw RFC 3986 getters</div><div>do.</div><di=
v><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
For the latest changes from Tuesday, I see that you added the <br>
WhatWg-specific `InvalidUrlException`. The `Uri\InvalidUriException` <br>
however still has the `$errors` property. I think you might have <br>
forgotten to remove it, since the Rfc3986 implementation / the base <br>
exception does not expose any errors, right?<br></blockquote><div><br></div=
><div>I made the changes in the RFC in a hurry, so yes, I forgot to remove =
the property. Thanks!</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>M=C3=A1t=C3=A9</div><div><=
br></div></div></div>

--000000000000fb71460632f78f01--