On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Chris Weber <ch...@lookout.net> wrote: > If this is of use to you I'm happy to hear your suggestions and make > adjustments to the test cases, format, or approach. I do have plans to > narrate each test case with a descriptive comment, reduce duplication, > and add more distinct cases.
This is super awesome. Glad you continued with this. I have a few generic points for now: * No special handling for IPv4. IPv4 should work the same as domain names. I.e. the host of http://192/ is 192, not 0.0.0.192. * It's still a bit unclear to me what the best solution is for fragment identifiers. Whether they should be percent escaped or not and whether that should differ between .href and .hash. * IDNA is a rathole. * Ports other than 0-9 will cause a parsing failure (e.g. 𝟖 will do that). When are you planning on doing the further cleanup you mention? At some point I can try to go through them in detail and suggest fixes (e.g. via a pull request). -- http://annevankesteren.nl/