> On Feb 25, 2025, at 09:55, ignace nyamagana butera <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The problem with your suggestion is that the specification from WHATWG and RFC3986/3987 are so
> different and that the function you are proposing won't be able to cover the outcome correctly
> (ie give the developper all the needed information). This is why, for instance, Maté added the
> getRaw* method alongside the normalized getter (method without the Raw prefix).
The two functions need not return an identical array of components; e.g., the 3986 parsing function
might return an array much like parse_url() does now, and the WHATWG function might return a
completely different array of components (one that includes the normalized and/or raw components).
All of this is to say that the parsing functionality does not have to be in an object to be useful
*both* to the internal API *and* to userland.
Recall that I'm responding at least in part to the comment that "Considering that one of
the other stated goals of this RFC is to provide this API to other core extensions, the previous
objections [to the Request/Response objects going into core] do not apply here." If the only
reason they don't apply is that the core extensions need a parsing API, that reason becomes
obviated by using just functions for the parsing elements.
Unless I'm missing something; happy to hear what that might be.
-- pmj