Hi,
Tim Düsterhus <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. ápr. 17., Cs,
9:22):
> Hi
>
> Am 2025-04-15 23:55, schrieb Máté 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!
Máté