Schemes are required by the URI/URL's grammar. I'm not entirely sure what "always present, not always visible" even means … those would seem to be synonyms. Perhaps we could infer "not always visible" to mean that there's some implied default … but there's not, not for a URI/URL. (For a relative-ref, yes.)
> Path: (always present)
… but this blows our implied default theory above out of the water. Paths are not always present: "https://google.com" is a valid URL, with no path. (One could say it implies "/", but … see the above.)
> It is recommended to place IPv4 and IPv6 addresses into brackets:
It is definitely not "recommended" … it's malformed to put IPv4 addresses in brackets, and it's mandatory for IPv6 addresses.
I'm trying to think of how you could have a URL without a host "visible". The network location is like the defining feature of a URL, vs. a URI.
But if a URI lacks a host, it's not just "not visible", again, there's no implied default there. "Host" might not even make sense, depending on the scheme.
> Fragment identifiers are not sent to the server.
I've not stated that this is the case, but I might add a note, that this is the case.
> query example should have both ? and & like> ?foo=1&bar=2&baz=3
The `&` is only needed if you have multiple parameters like in the Youtube example, or am I getting it wrong?
> Perhaps behind the path/to/whatever have a /filename.XXX
This is an example for a path without explicit resource as most servers would provide an `index.html` file by default in this case. I might add a note to clarify it.
> Also, the story on the www "subdomain" is missing.
For the query portion, it really depends if your are reading it server side or client side and using the WHATWG standard[0] which itself just mirrors convention. However, the standard dictating how a URL might be formed does not mandate anything about the query string that makes it parsable.
> It is recommended to place IPv4 and IPv6 addresses into brackets:
I tried doing this, and my brower(s) just assumed it was a search string, and took me to my search engine.
Does that mean they're not following the RFC? (section 3.2.2 of RFC3896)
Should I file a bug with Mozilla?
[+] [-] deathanatos|2 years ago|reply
> Scheme: (always present, not always visible)
Schemes are required by the URI/URL's grammar. I'm not entirely sure what "always present, not always visible" even means … those would seem to be synonyms. Perhaps we could infer "not always visible" to mean that there's some implied default … but there's not, not for a URI/URL. (For a relative-ref, yes.)
> Path: (always present)
… but this blows our implied default theory above out of the water. Paths are not always present: "https://google.com" is a valid URL, with no path. (One could say it implies "/", but … see the above.)
> It is recommended to place IPv4 and IPv6 addresses into brackets:
It is definitely not "recommended" … it's malformed to put IPv4 addresses in brackets, and it's mandatory for IPv6 addresses.
Just read the RFC? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986
> Host: (always present, not always visible)
I'm trying to think of how you could have a URL without a host "visible". The network location is like the defining feature of a URL, vs. a URI.
But if a URI lacks a host, it's not just "not visible", again, there's no implied default there. "Host" might not even make sense, depending on the scheme.
[+] [-] whatbackup|2 years ago|reply
In general, I've removed the notes in the brackets and either added more context and examples or integrated it into the text.
> Scheme: (always present, not always visible)
Added more context.
> Path: (always present)
You are right, the root directory `/` is implied. Added this as an example.
> It is recommended to place IPv4 and IPv6 addresses into brackets:
Correct, my bad. I've added more examples and the note, that it is required to put IPv6 addresses into square brackets.
> Host: (always present, not always visible)
Been a while so I am not sure what I meant. I've made some changes and added more examples.
Again, thank you!
[+] [-] johnny22|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tkot|2 years ago|reply
Hostname can be skipped in file URI and localhost will be assumed, maybe that's what the author meant.
[+] [-] mattpallissard|2 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL
[+] [-] 6510|2 years ago|reply
query example should have both ? and & like
Perhaps behind the path/to/whatever have a /filename.XXXAlso, the story on the www "subdomain" is missing.
[+] [-] Jasper_|2 years ago|reply
[0] http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q3/0812.ht...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/19961220100435/http://www.ncsa.u...
[+] [-] whatbackup|2 years ago|reply
> Fragment identifiers are not sent to the server.
I've not stated that this is the case, but I might add a note, that this is the case.
> query example should have both ? and & like > ?foo=1&bar=2&baz=3
The `&` is only needed if you have multiple parameters like in the Youtube example, or am I getting it wrong?
> Perhaps behind the path/to/whatever have a /filename.XXX
This is an example for a path without explicit resource as most servers would provide an `index.html` file by default in this case. I might add a note to clarify it.
> Also, the story on the www "subdomain" is missing.
Story, as in history?
[+] [-] samtho|2 years ago|reply
[0]: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-urlsearchparams
[+] [-] Biganon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codepoet80|2 years ago|reply
I tried doing this, and my brower(s) just assumed it was a search string, and took me to my search engine. Does that mean they're not following the RFC? (section 3.2.2 of RFC3896) Should I file a bug with Mozilla?
[+] [-] SethMLarson|2 years ago|reply