Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127324
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.500.181.1.5\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Add WHATWG compliant URL parsing API
In-Reply-To: <OCnCfRLcbBnZtVBVAiJoCUVtbw8znOkgpULTYbtzcyquBwpbd2aWyrZMfkOegRVNEScB9sy6a_PrwOFg6cJKHVWsjOX66bH7ocmdl7OsfTY=@gpb.moe>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 12:38:08 -0500
Cc: =?utf-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>,
 PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <554ED466-75BD-4435-B959-A8A8AFB3AF8F@pmjones.io>
References: <CAH5C8xUb1O20ZDrOQNC=ckFxHUUWSK7sw_njQQzFBd0qgQqoww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xVquAMhQyrmnsBhnHtVrTpvC1+iW=pGf7EM0sHAGuAXeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <E34BD802-5B71-4D42-91AC-53CCAEFF92DC@pmjones.io>
 <OCnCfRLcbBnZtVBVAiJoCUVtbw8znOkgpULTYbtzcyquBwpbd2aWyrZMfkOegRVNEScB9sy6a_PrwOFg6cJKHVWsjOX66bH7ocmdl7OsfTY=@gpb.moe>
To: "Gina P. Banyard" <internals@gpb.moe>
From: pmjones@pmjones.io ("Paul M. Jones")

Hi all,

> On May 7, 2025, at 17:02, Gina P. Banyard <internals@gpb.moe> wrote:
>=20
> On Wednesday, 7 May 2025 at 20:20, Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io> =
wrote:
>=20
>> I am on record as wanting very much to see some decent web-centric =
objects in core PHP (Request, Response, Uri/Url, etc).
>>=20
>> To my chagrin, despite the fact that its goals are laudable, I do not =
think this RFC is in a ready state to provide such objects.
>> [...]
>>=20
>> -- pmj


Putting these together, one from the beginning ...

> Considering that this RFC was in discussion for over 10 months, and =
you only started providing input 2 months ago after there have already =
been serious alterations to it _twice_.

... and one from the end:

> the opinion of someone that is trying to chime in last minute.

Sure, I can see what it looks like: Johnny-come-lately starts making =
noise only as things are finishing up.

I can say only that (at least from my perspective) there was no sure way =
to tell how much longer discussion would go on, or how many more changes =
might be considered. Based on other experiences, conscience demanded =
that I offer comments as requested on the RFC, as many others had before =
me.


> I am not sure your "rant" is something that is at all productive.

I am glad for the scare quotes; it was a factual analysis, not a rant. =
As to whether it is productive, well, one never knows until afterwards.


> You are free to vote against it,

I might? If I do, it strikes me as constructive (and polite) to have =
provided reasons why -- thus my message.


> but stalling the work someone has committed just because you don't =
think it is ready is not how any of this works.

To be fair, just because someone has committed work does not mean the =
work should be accepted; but, my individual opinion is of relatively =
little weight there.


> Looking from the sidelines, you seem to have the opinion that we =
should be standardizing existing userland design.

Not exactly. My opinion is that the RFC should consider the approaches =
taken by the many others that have produced working URI solutions; and, =
if those approaches are discarded, then articulate the reasons for doing =
so. To ignore them out of hand is insufficiently diligent.


> So let's go through your points:
>=20
>> - is too broad in scope;
>=20
> An RFC author is allowed to choose whatever scope they want.

I did not say otherwise; whether the scope chosen is a good one or not =
is something else.


>> - has an uncertain API.
>=20
> Frankly, 90% of the recent uncertainty has seemingly come from you =
trying to "rework" the RFC to your own taste.


First, the uncertainty I referred to was from the RFC itself, when it =
states that the API needs to become "mature enough" and "tested in =
practice" until it "settles." That tells me the authors aren't too sure =
of it.

Then, to be clear, those observations and suggestions were not based on =
my "own taste." They are based the decisions of a dozen or so developers =
working in the URI space, research into which is summarized at =
<https://github.com/uri-interop/interface/blob/1.x/README-RESEARCH.md>.


>> - admits to standards non-compliance; and,
>=20
> Non-compliance with what?

I mentioned this in the earlier message, but to reiterate: the =
WHATWG-URL getters "don't (entirely) follow the =E2=80=9Cgetter steps=E2=80=
=9D that are defined by the specification, but the individual components =
are returned directly without any other changes that the =E2=80=9Cgetter =
steps=E2=80=9D would otherwise specify."

* * *

So, those are some of my concerns around the RFC. Take them or leave =
them, as you see fit. If the RFC passes, it won't be the worst thing =
that that ever happened to PHP, and if it turns out that my concerns =
were unfounded, so much the better.



-- pmj