Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127227
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.400.131.1.6\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Add WHATWG compliant URL parsing API
In-Reply-To: <CAH5C8xXLPoRLJ6_dtotMtOv2NWs4LFzu+Kpr5A56Xk8wmuPDEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:49:24 -0500
Cc: Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <DBA16148-2197-4E80-B60C-EC1F02C20F13@pmjones.io>
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>
 <CAH5C8xU+rnp4e5=CzqhEncRww6nhZ7x1s68NjWtu+HQMpoNZ8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <76d96ea8a78c6025128c0a4b01c94c0a@bastelstu.be>
 <CAH5C8xXLPoRLJ6_dtotMtOv2NWs4LFzu+Kpr5A56Xk8wmuPDEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>
From: pmjones@pmjones.io ("Paul M. Jones")

Hi Mat=C3=A9 and all,

> On Apr 27, 2025, at 16:47, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis =
<kocsismate90@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Hi Tim,
...
>> So it seems to be safer to use the naming without the `raw` and then =
in=20
>> the documentation explain what happens with useful examples, just =
like=20
>> the RFC already does.
>=20
> We discussed this off the list, and the recommendation made sense to =
me at last.

I am glad to see it!

* * *

Removing the `raw()` methods from the Whatwg\Url class opens up another =
opportunity.

The Rfc3986\Uri `raw()` methods present a departure from existing =
userland expectations when working with URIs. No existing URI package =
that I'm aware of retains the normalized values as their "main" values; =
the values are generally retained-as-given (i.e. "raw"). Nor do they =
afford getting two versions of the retained values (one raw, one =
normalized).

This might be solved by renaming the Rfc3986\Uri methods so that the =
"main" methods return the raw values, and the alternative methods return =
the normalized versions. For example, getPath() would become =
getNormalizedPath(), and getRawPath() would become getPath().

But that's pretty verbose, and on considering it further, I think I =
think there are two classes combined inside Rfc3986\Uri.

Proposal:

Instead of a single Rfc3986\Uri class that tries to hold *both* raw =
*and* normalized values and logic at the same time, introduce a =
NormalizedUri class to operate with normalized values, and treat the =
current Uri class as operating with raw values. That would, among other =
things:

- fulfill existing userland expectations;
- eliminate the getRaw() methods;
- replace the toString()/toRawString() with a single idiomatic =
__toString() in each class;
- move normalization logic into the NormalizedUri class.

Optionally, there could be one additional method one or both classes, =
toNormalizedUri(), to create and return a normalized instance. For Uri =
the return would be a new NormalizedUri; for NormalizedUri, the return =
would either be itself ($this) or a clone of itself.

If the RFC pursues that approach, it will also lend itself to either an =
abstract they each extend or (preferably) an interface they each =
implement. If an interface, I opine it should be called Uri; the current =
Uri class might become RawUri (with NormalizedUri not needing a rename).

Thoughts?


-- pmj