Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Add WHATWG compliant URL parsing API

Hi Maté and Time, I have one last question while reviewing my polyfill implementation. Is it worth it adding a SensitiveParameter attribute on the argument of the following methods ? - Uri\Rfc3986\Uri::withUserInfo - Uri\WhatWg\Url::withPassword I'm fine with any answer ? Does it warrant a paragraph in the RFC ? That I do not know but I feel the question may be raised ? Best regards, Ignace Nyamagana Butera On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:31 PM ignace nyamagana butera < nyamsprod@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Maté, > > > I fiddled a little bit with the implementation, and I went with the > Uri\UriComparisonMode enum name at last. I hope that it is OK on your side. > > If no one objects with your name choice I am fine with it, as long as it > is not a boolean :) I will adapt my polyfill. I think I have no more > remarks from my side of things, great job! Since I do not have the right > to vote I hope this one will pass when time for voting comes! > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:21 PM Máté Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Ignace, >> >> The $excludeFragment is true by default so in the example >> it should be >>> false instead. Perhaps using an Enum instead would make >>> the >>> DX easier than using a boolean ? >>> I believe the same issue is in all examples regarding the use of that >>> parameter. >>> >> >> You are right, I completely messed up the value of the $excludeFragment >> variables in the examples. After having thought about your suggestion, I'm >> fine with adding the enum. >> It's a bit verbose indeed, but at least it properly conveys the meaning >> of the parameter, so hopefully it will reduce the number of WTFs when >> people start to use the new API. :) >> >> I fiddled a little bit with the implementation, and I went with the >> Uri\UriComparisonMode enum name at last. I hope that it is OK on your side. >> >> Regards, >> Máté >> >