| 02:21 | <sideshowbarker> | annevk (or anyone else who loves answering questions about the URL spec): No part of a conforming “absolute-URL string” https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#absolute-url-string can ever contain any ASCII whitespace, right? |
| 02:25 | <sideshowbarker> | Context is, I’m working on implementing the constraint-validation requirements for type=url input elements. And I’m hoping to avoid needing to write an actual lexer for “absolute-URL string” — and instead just actually run the URL parser on the URLs, with some preprocessing and post-processing |
| 02:27 | <sideshowbarker> | And it seems like one pre-processing step that’d work is to return not-valid for any strings that contain ASCII whitespace |
| 04:21 | <sideshowbarker> | hmm, given that in https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/input.html#url-state-(type=url), the spec specifically and normatively references “absolute-URL string” and not “absolute-URL-with-fragment string”, then that means: if a URL has any fragment at all, then the requirement is that implementations must handle it as an invalid value for type=url input element (for the purposes of the constraint-validation API)? |
| 05:20 | <Domenic> | I am 95% sure browsers do not implement that... |
| 05:22 | <sideshowbarker> | well that’s the thing |
| 05:22 | <sideshowbarker> | I am implementing it |
| 05:22 | <sideshowbarker> | Attempting to — per the actual spec requirements |
| 05:23 | <sideshowbarker> | So if the requirements don’t actually match what other implementors are interested in, then I guess we need to update the spec |
| 05:24 | <sideshowbarker> | But yeah you’re right — other engines don’t implement it per-spec |
| 05:25 | <sideshowbarker> | And I have not looked at their code, but I strongly suspect that one big reason is that no existing implementations are actually running a lexer to check that “absolute-URL string” requirement |
| 05:25 | <sideshowbarker> | Instead, they’re probably all just parsing the value into a URL, and only returning invalid if they don’t get any URL value back from that |
| 05:26 | <sideshowbarker> | At least I can see that seems to be the case from the tests I’ve run so far — with some dozens of cases from https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/275544eab54a0d0c7f74ccc2baae9711293d8908/url/urltestdata.txt |
| 05:31 | <sideshowbarker> | I’d be happy to just make my implementation match what other engines are doing, and add a comment in our code saying that. But then, we also rightly should have many more tests in WPT for this. And I have tests I can upstream. But if I make the test results match what other engines are doing, then those tests are not actually going to be conforming to the spec requirements… |
| 05:32 | <sideshowbarker> | The existing test for this in WPT at https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/6618dc6e2a580d6d816f7a5b291c016f7a2c0204/html/semantics/forms/constraints/form-validation-checkValidity.html#L30 has exactly one case: the string abc |
| 05:32 | <Domenic> | Yeah, I'm just saying if it were me, I would drop implementation work and instead open a spec issue to get this sorted. |
| 05:33 | <sideshowbarker> | ah OK yeah there’s plenty of other stuff we need that I can work on the meantime |
| 05:34 | <sideshowbarker> | (but when I started out on implementing this, it looked to me (naïvely) like it was going to be relatively low-hanging fruit…)) |
| 05:48 | <sideshowbarker> | Made a WPT PR at https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/51011/files with the added tests |
| 05:49 | <sideshowbarker> | Do we currently have a way of hosting/enabling people to run WPT tests from a PR branch? |
| 05:50 | <sideshowbarker> | I kind of vaguely recall seeing something a while back. Like, with w3c-test.org (predecessor to wpt.live) we used to have a thing that created subdirectories for every pull request |
| 05:56 | <annevk> | I think there might be an existing issue on type=url. It needs something similar to type=email work. |
| 05:56 | <sideshowbarker> | ah OK, I’ll look now |
| 05:59 | <sideshowbarker> | Well, didn’t find it yet. Not in whatwg/html at least |
| 06:27 | <annevk> | sideshowbarker: can't find it either, please file one? Non-ASCII input in various parts of the URL would also be good to test. Including what ends up getting submitted. |
| 06:27 | <annevk> | smaug: is it reasonable to ask you to review moveBefore() by Monday? (Somewhat arbitrary deadline.) |
| 08:50 | <sideshowbarker> | Raised https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11083 |
| 09:50 | <Domenic> | Clear-Site-Data is desperately in need of maintenance... https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-clear-site-data/issues/87 |
| 10:06 | <smaug> | annevk: I could review it on Monday. (though it feels a bit odd that reviews need to happen fast, while the pr wasn't updated for quite some time) |
| 10:10 | <sideshowbarker> | We should adopt a policy that anybody who abandons a spec — or neglects/leaves it unmaintained over N number of months/years — is barred for life from ever being able to write another spec |
| 10:17 | <annevk> | smaug: you're right. I didn't want to punish with incremental backoff, but it doesn't have to be done immediately either. I guess I just kinda want it over with myself. |
| 10:17 | <annevk> | If it's done somewhere next week that's good enough for me. |
| 10:20 | <smaug> | I want the pr landed too, such a nice feature. It is just that when there is lots of time between pr updates, I need to basically re-review everything in order to remind myself what all it is changing. |
| 10:20 | <annevk> | Very much same, which is maybe why I want you to review it quickly, but it would also require Dominic Farolino to then update it quickly again. |
| 10:25 | <Ms2ger> | We should adopt a policy that anybody who abandons a spec — or neglects/leaves it unmaintained over N number of months/years — is barred for life from ever being able to write another spec |
| 10:34 | <sideshowbarker> | about Client Hints, I added a comment at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=935216#c73 that I hope isn’t out of line. Just an attempt at a heads-up, out of empathy with whoever might wander into trying to implement it next |
| 10:41 | <annevk> | sideshowbarker: Client-Hints != Clear-Site-Data though |
| 10:41 | <sideshowbarker> | ah |
| 10:42 | <annevk> | Now I'm pretty certain Client-Hints also has unresolved issues (including some in Fetch), but they're at different URLs. 😀 |
| 10:47 | sideshowbarker | makes a note to avoid posting issue/bug comments while trying to cook dinner for 5 at the same time… |
| 18:52 | <TabAtkins> | yeah, don't threaten us with a good time, sideshowbarker |
| 19:00 | <freddy> | I agree, but I don't think the webappsec chairs are in this channel. Would you reach out to them directly or the wg mailing list? |