Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove gopher from list of special schemes #556

Closed
CYBAI opened this issue Oct 18, 2019 · 7 comments
Closed

Remove gopher from list of special schemes #556

CYBAI opened this issue Oct 18, 2019 · 7 comments

Comments

@CYBAI
Copy link
Member

CYBAI commented Oct 18, 2019

whatwg/url#453
web-platform-tests/wpt#19770

@jamestomasino
Copy link

jamestomasino commented Feb 19, 2020

whatwg is heavily focused on HTML. Their choice to drop support for other protocols is understandable based on those goals. Rust is bigger than just the web, as are URLs, despite their opinion.

There are gopher clients in the wild relying on this implementation in rust-url. Gopher still exists and has users. Dropping support here will not significantly change the library, but it will have significant impact on those users.

@SimonSapin
Copy link
Member

Making a scheme "non-special" doesn’t mean you can’t use it, only that some details of the parsing algorithm are different.

@jamestomasino
Copy link

Egg on my face! What would actually change from this, then? Will gopher urls still know that gopher runs on Port 70 by default?

@tmccombs
Copy link
Contributor

Making a scheme "non-special" doesn’t mean you can’t use it, only that some details of the parsing algorithm are different.

Which also changes the behaviour of certain setter methods, since they follow the parsing algorithm. See #577 and #579

@djc
Copy link
Contributor

djc commented Aug 25, 2020

This was fixed in 2f204d0.

@djc djc closed this as completed Aug 25, 2020
@tmccombs
Copy link
Contributor

I wonder if it would make since to have some way for users of rust-url to specify that a scheme is "special". Perhaps a method on ParseOptions either to force "specialness", or give a list of additional schemes to treat as "special"?

@djc
Copy link
Contributor

djc commented Aug 26, 2020

Seems like a decent proposal on the face of it. Let's discuss in #577?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants