Url struct layout makes processing URIs in servers difficult about rust-url HOT 4 CLOSED

Regarding rust-url: nothing is set in stone. Quite the opposite, it’s very much a work in progress. I’m aware that some use cases are not covered yet, and interested in what kind of data structure and API you think would help. I’d definitely ask that we try to figure something out together before you go off and start a competing library.

Regarding the URL standard: "acceptance" pretty much depends on who you ask. It’s designed to reflect how browsers actually work, and to properly define error handling (where RFCs can be quite hand-wavy.)

Regarding URL v.s. URI: first, is it useful to have two distinct concepts? In practice, the difference doesn’t really matter to software. If that distinction is removed, we need to pick a single term. URI might be "more correct", but in practice everybody outside of IETF uses URL. See what happened with TLS: it’s been around for 15 years, but we still talk about SSL which only existed 4 years before that.

from rust-url.

Thanks. Ignore my URI/URL madness. I'll make a more concrete suggestion (hopefully pull req) in the coming days.

from rust-url.

Related: #2

from rust-url.

After reading more than half the code and re-reading both standards, I've recognized why URL parsing needs to be this way, grouping the scheme-relative URL, rather than putting Authority and Path in the top struct... because an absolute URL needs at least a host in the authority section, and other schemes define the whole scheme-relative URL. So I'll probably just use as-is, parsing with a dummy base url and having blank fields. Closing.

from rust-url.