I still have one last question regarding the RFC3986 URI path component.
Currently the path is nullable but according to the RFC the path can not be
nullable
According to the RFC the path can have up to 5 ABNF representation
> path = path-abempty ; begins with "/" or is empty
/ path-absolute ; begins with "/" but not "//"
/ path-noscheme ; begins with a non-colon segment
/ path-rootless ; begins with a segment
/ path-empty ; zero characters
path-abempty = *( "/" segment )
path-absolute = "/" [ segment-nz *( "/" segment ) ]
path-noscheme = segment-nz-nc *( "/" segment )
path-rootless = segment-nz *( "/" segment )
path-empty = 0<pchar>
but none of which is null. The path can only be a string empty or not.
so I would change the getPath and withPath signature
to highlight that fact. Apart from that I have no more comments.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 1:21 PM Máté Kocsis <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
>