Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Obsolete RFCs should be removed from doc of urllib.urlparse #49900

Closed
MLModel mannequin opened this issue Apr 1, 2009 · 15 comments
Closed

Obsolete RFCs should be removed from doc of urllib.urlparse #49900

MLModel mannequin opened this issue Apr 1, 2009 · 15 comments
Assignees
@orsenthil
Labels
docs Documentation in the Doc dir easy type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error

Comments

@MLModel
Copy link
Mannequin

MLModel mannequin commented Apr 1, 2009

BPO 5650
Nosy @birkenfeld, @orsenthil, @ezio-melotti, @merwok, @MLModel
Files
  • urlparse.diff: First attempt: corrected RFC references and “URL” usage
    		•

    Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.

    Show more details

    GitHub fields:

    assignee = 'https://github.com/orsenthil'
closed_at = <Date 2010-04-22.06:04:45.179>
created_at = <Date 2009-04-01.16:14:16.272>
labels = ['easy', 'type-bug', 'docs']
title = 'Obsolete RFCs should be removed from doc of urllib.urlparse'
updated_at = <Date 2010-04-22.11:36:20.115>
user = 'https://github.com/MLModel'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2010-04-22.11:36:20.115>
actor = 'eric.araujo'
assignee = 'orsenthil'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2010-04-22.06:04:45.179>
closer = 'orsenthil'
components = ['Documentation']
creation = <Date 2009-04-01.16:14:16.272>
creator = 'MLModel'
dependencies = []
files = ['13780']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 5650
keywords = ['patch', 'easy']
message_count = 15.0
messages = ['85032', '86531', '86543', '86546', '86879', '86895', '102885', '103404', '103560', '103939', '103943', '103944', '103947', '103950', '103955']
nosy_count = 5.0
nosy_names = ['georg.brandl', 'orsenthil', 'ezio.melotti', 'eric.araujo', 'MLModel']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'behavior'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue5650'
versions = ['Python 2.6', 'Python 3.1', 'Python 2.7', 'Python 3.2']
    @MLModel
    Copy link
    Mannequin Author

    MLModel mannequin commented Apr 1, 2009

    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.

    @MLModel MLModel mannequin assigned birkenfeld Apr 1, 2009
    @MLModel MLModel mannequin added the docs Documentation in the Doc dir label Apr 1, 2009
    @devdanzin devdanzin mannequin added easy type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error labels Apr 22, 2009
    @merwok
    Copy link
    Member

    merwok commented Apr 25, 2009

    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.

    @merwok
    Copy link
    Member

    merwok commented Apr 25, 2009

    Sorry, my logic was flawed: RFC 1808 is not obsoleted either, so it
    leaves us with 1738, 1808 and 3986.

    @merwok
    Copy link
    Member

    merwok commented Apr 25, 2009

    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.

    @orsenthil
    Copy link
    Member

    Georg, shall I take up this one?

    @birkenfeld
    Copy link
    Member

    Yes, you've probably a better understanding of what differentiates an
    URL and URI than me :)

    @merwok
    Copy link
    Member

    merwok commented Apr 11, 2010

    See also bpo-2987

    @merwok merwok changed the title Obsolete RFC's should be removed from doc of urllib.urlparse Obsolete RFCs should be removed from doc of urllib.urlparse Apr 11, 2010
    @orsenthil
    Copy link
    Member

    Fixed in revision 80146 and merged into other branches
    release26-maint: r80147
    py3k: r80148
    release31-maint: r80149

    @orsenthil orsenthil assigned orsenthil and unassigned birkenfeld Apr 17, 2010
    @ezio-melotti
    Copy link
    Member

    The 'See also' in the documentation should also be updated:
    http://docs.python.org/dev/library/urlparse.html#urlparse.urldefrag

    @ezio-melotti ezio-melotti reopened this Apr 19, 2010
    @orsenthil
    Copy link
    Member

    Updated in the r80336 through r80339. Thanks for the note, Ezio.

    @merwok
    Copy link
    Member

    merwok commented Apr 22, 2010

    Hello

    You’ve added references to current RFCs without removing obsolete ones. Why not remove mention of obsoleted RFCs?

    Regards

    @orsenthil
    Copy link
    Member

    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.

    @merwok
    Copy link
    Member

    merwok commented Apr 22, 2010

    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?

    @orsenthil
    Copy link
    Member

    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.

    @merwok
    Copy link
    Member

    merwok commented Apr 22, 2010

    (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

    @ezio-melotti ezio-melotti transferred this issue from another repository Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Assignees

    @orsenthil orsenthil

    Labels
    docs Documentation in the Doc dir easy type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error
    Projects
    None yet
    Milestone
    No milestone
    Development

    No branches or pull requests
    4 participants
    @birkenfeld @orsenthil @merwok @ezio-melotti