On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:50:57AM +0000, Michael Glassford wrote:
> 1) Although the urlparse documentation does mention the relevant RFCs, on a quick read-through I don't see that it actually requires its input to be a valid URL.
> 2) Obviously, some code is using it for invalid URLs.

Which is true, because in some cases like urlparse.urljoin(base, rel),
the rel is a relative url it undergoes the same parsing mechanism
applicable to any url and thus there is no way a 'rigorous' check for
authorized url is happening. 

Checks are done for valid chars in scheme and other parsing
behaviours.

> I don't have a problem with this. I reported the issue to bring attention to the fact that the change affected real code and to see if anyone had suggestions for dealing with the problem in a better way (at the moment, I don't).
>

Yeah, I understand the situation with 'changes which break the
existing code', which we try to avoid many times. I shall if this can
be addressed without reverting any recent changes and still being
complaint.