| msg85032 - (view) |
Author: Mitchell Model (MLModel) |
Date: 2009-04-01 16:14 |
| The documentation of urlparse in Python2 and urllib.urlparse in Python3 refers to three RFC's, the last of which (RFC 2396) says that it supersedes the other two and, in fact, clicking on the links to the other two doesn't work; the link and description for the two obsolete RFCs should be removed. |
|
|
| msg86531 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) *  |
Date: 2009-04-25 17:53 |
| More precisely, RFC 1738 and 1808 are updated by RFC 2396, which is in turn obsoleted by RFC 3986 (which obsoletes 1808 too but only updates 1738). Eliminating the obsoleted ones leaves us with two references, RFC 1738 and RFC 3986. I’m going to remove all references to RFCs other that these two (I understand from test_urlparse that urlparse actually conforms to RFC 3986, that’s a good thing). I’m going to replace some instances of “URL” with “URI” where appropriate (only in the documentation, not in modules or functions names). Besides, all three links work for me. |
|
|
| msg86543 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2009-04-25 19:49 |
| Sorry, my logic was flawed: RFC 1808 is not obsoleted either, so it leaves us with 1738, 1808 and 3986. |
|
|
| msg86546 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2009-04-25 20:22 |
| Included patch for this issue. There is some diff noise because of paragraph wrapping. I don’t know whether my seealso addition is correctly formatted (the title spans two lines) because of a Sphinx bug on my machine. Thanks for reviewing. |
|
|
| msg86879 - (view) |
Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * |
Date: 2009-05-01 10:59 |
| Georg, shall I take up this one? |
|
|
| msg86895 - (view) |
Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2009-05-01 18:55 |
| Yes, you've probably a better understanding of what differentiates an URL and URI than me :) |
|
|
| msg102885 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2010-04-11 20:44 |
| See also #2987 |
|
|
| msg103404 - (view) |
Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * |
Date: 2010-04-17 14:47 |
| Fixed in revision 80146 and merged into other branches release26-maint: r80147 py3k: r80148 release31-maint: r80149 |
|
|
| msg103560 - (view) |
Author: Ezio Melotti (ezio.melotti) * |
Date: 2010-04-19 08:43 |
| The 'See also' in the documentation should also be updated: http://docs.python.org/dev/library/urlparse.html#urlparse.urldefrag |
|
|
| msg103939 - (view) |
Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * |
Date: 2010-04-22 06:04 |
| Updated in the r80336 through r80339. Thanks for the note, Ezio. |
|
|
| msg103943 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2010-04-22 10:31 |
| Hello You’ve added references to current RFCs without removing obsolete ones. Why not remove mention of obsoleted RFCs? Regards |
|
|
| msg103944 - (view) |
Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * |
Date: 2010-04-22 10:35 |
| It was intentional as not to remove the old RFC references because certain parsing behaviours follow them compatibility purposes. If you look at test_urlparse.py you might get the specifics of parsing corresponding a RFC. |
|
|
| msg103947 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2010-04-22 11:07 |
| Thanks for the explanation. Would it make sense to have either different functions or a switch to existing ones to tell if we want legacy or modern parsing? |
|
|
| msg103950 - (view) |
Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * |
Date: 2010-04-22 11:15 |
| On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:08:01AM +0000, Éric Araujo wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. Would it make sense to have either different > functions or a switch to existing ones to tell if we want legacy or > modern parsing? Hard at the moment, or is it a bleeding requirement? I doubt. But what is worth is full compliance on all scales with STD 66. |
|
|
| msg103955 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2010-04-22 11:36 |
| (Not sure I understand “bleeding requirement”, but I get the gist.) Full compliance with STD 66 is indeed the most desirable goal, thanks for your work in that direction! I just thought that some corner cases were not compliant because of backwards compat (hence the disabled tests in test_urlparse). Regards |
|
|