"Drew DeVault" <sir@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue Mar 16, 2021 at 7:54 AM EDT, brian m. carlson wrote: >> I believe this construct is nonstandard. It is better to use standard >> URL syntax when possible because it makes it much, much easier for >> people to use standard tooling to parse and handle URLs. Such tooling >> may have special cases for the HTTP syntax that it doesn't use in MAILTO >> syntax, so it's important to pick something that works automatically. > > It is standard - RFC 3986 section 3.1 permits the + character in > URI schemes. The use of protocol "composition", e.g. git+https, is a > convention, but not a standard. All right, that is true... but the Git itself and Git--related tools do not usually employ the full-fledged URI parser, as far as I know. They just check for the few schemas they support if the repository location is given as an URI / URL. That said, if the RFC states it, then it is a standard construct. >> So I'm very much opposed to adding, expanding, or giving any sort of >> official blessing to this syntax, especially when there are perfectly >> valid and equivalent schemes that are already blessed and registered >> with IANA. > > This convention is blessed by the IANA, given that they have > accepted protocol registrations which use this convention: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml Well, thara is a total of one protocol (CoAP) that uses '+' based schemas, namely: coap+tcp, coap+ws, coaps+tcp, coaps+ws (well at least out of those protocols that made it into IANA). Though it in this case neither of those parts of schema joined by the '+' sign is an application name... >> It's difficult enough to handle parsing of SSH specifications and >> distinguish them uniformly from Windows paths (think of an alias named >> "c"), so I'd prefer we didn't add additional complexity to handle this >> case. > > There's no additional complexity here: git remotes are URIs, and any > implementation which parses them as such already deals with this case > correctly. Any implementation which doesn't may face all kinds of > problems as a consequence: SSH without a user specified, HTTPS with > Basic auth in the URI username/password fields (or just the password, > which is also allowed), and so on. Any sane and correct implementation > is pulling in a URI parser here, and if not, I don't think it's fair for > git to constrain itself in order to work around some other project's > bugs. The Git documentation explicitly enumerates all possible URL types that you can use with Git. On the other hand Git-related tools can support more types of URL, for example ones for AWS S3 buckets. > >> Lest you think that only Git has to handle parsing these > > I don't, given that my argument stems from making it easier for > third-party applications to deal with git URIs :) > >> Despite the fact that ssh+git is specified as deprecated, we had >> people expect it to magically work and had to support it in Git LFS. > > Aye, people do expect it to work. The problem is not going to go away. To reiterate, the idea of "prefixed URLs", that is using git+https:// and git+ssh:// is to denote that said URL is only usable by Git, without any additional out-of-band information (like other attributes on <a> element or its encompassing element)? Best, -- Jakub Narębski
