To illustrate using JSDOM:

const urlRecord = parseURL("data:space #hello");
const serialized = serializeURL(urlRecord, /* excludeFragment: */ true);
  
const reparsed = parseURL(serialized);
const serializedAgain = serializeURL(reparsed, /* excludeFragment: */ true);
assert.strictEqual(serialized, serializedAgain);  // Fails

assert.strictEqual(received, expected)

Expected value to strictly be equal to:
  "data:space"
Received:
  "data:space "

Nice catch!

We could also try to encode a trailing space, maybe. Or maybe we already considered and discarded that last time for a good reason?

Within a browser serializing without a fragment is mainly done for networking-related code (and thus https:), but data: URLs could be impacted I suppose.

I don't see any discussion last time about escaping trailing spaces. I suggested escaping all spaces, but that was considered likely incompatible with the web. I think it should be fine.

That said, I would suggest that we escape all trailing spaces (not just the final trailing space). I can't imagine that escaping just the final space would be any better for compatibility.

I'd prefer to just escape only the last trailing space. It's simpler and the algorithm would be faster.
So I don't see any advantage in escaping all the trailing spaces, or am I wrong?

@achristensen07 @valenting @hayatoito thoughts on how to best tackle this? Given the discussion so far I see these options:

1. Always replace a trailing space in an opaque path with %20.
2. Replace a trailing space with %20 when it becomes problematic, such as when serializing or using one of the setters. (This would also change setter behavior away from removing trailing spaces.)
3. Only replace a trailing space with %20 when serializing, but keep removing spaces when using the setters.

And then variants of 1/2/3 where we instead replace all trailing spaces with %20, let's call those 1b/2b/3b.

I like the simplicity of 1 personally.

I'd prefer to just escape only the last trailing space. It's simpler and the algorithm would be faster.
So I don't see any advantage in escaping all the trailing spaces, or am I wrong?

So, I think there is probably broad agreement that unescaped spaces are not ideal. Unfortunately, they are required for web compatibility, so we have to allow them as much as possible.

As part of this change, one or more trailing spaces that would previously have been unescaped would now be escaped. That's a change which has the potential to break some applications, but it is equally breaking whether we escape one trailing space or all trailing spaces. There is no compatibility advantage to only escaping a single space - the same applications would break either way, and the remedy would be the same.

I can't think of another time where we escape only a single occurrence of a particular character, and leave all other instances of that character in the same URL component without escaping; generally it's always "code point X is escaped in component Y". So both possibilities add not-insignificant complexity - but, if I were a developer working these kinds of URLs, I think it would be overall simpler and more predictable if the parser escaped all of those trailing spaces for me at once. Then I could do my processing (perhaps removing some of those trailing spaces), and I wouldn't keep seeing the parser add escaping for me all the time.

As for performance? The difference is negligible. We're talking about an edge case of an edge case of an edge case (multiple occurrences of unescaped trailing spaces in a URL with opaque path); the important thing is that the more common scenarios can be fast-pathed, and they can.

@karwa however, the current proposal gives data:text/html,blah blah%20 for data:text/html,blah blah so it's not quite correct that all spaces end up replaced. So we might as well do what is simpler.

Right. The question is only about multiple trailing unescaped spaces. If the source only contains a single trailing space to begin with, the result would be the same.

I think escaping all trailing spaces leads to a simpler and more predictable outcome (and fewer unescaped spaces, even if we can't escape all of them) -- but again, it's an edge case of an edge case of an edge case, so it's not extremely important to me.

https://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/12022 demonstrates this issue using XMLHttpRequest. Gecko strips trailing spaces and Chromium/WebKit do not (none escape). Perhaps this lack of interoperability suggests we have some freedom here to do something better?

@achristensen07 @valenting @hayatoito thoughts?

While I would prefer a consistent behaviour such as escaping all spaces in a path, I suspect it might be easier to just escape or strip the trailing spaces. I don't have any preference between the two.

I haven't had time to understand the issue yet.

Can't we consider that encoding a trailing space is a user's responsibility, instead of URL Standard's responsibility?

For example, the following is a bad practice. Spaces can be trimmed anytime after some accidental operations.

new URL("data:blah #hello")

Thus, we encourage users to escape trailing spaces by themselves before passing it to URL to avoid an accidental removal.

new URL("data:blah %20#hello");

Please correct me if I don't understand the issue.

You understand it correctly, the problem here is that we have an idempotence goal: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#goals. And while the goals are not immutable, idempotence is a property I think we want to keep. There have been quite a few security issues with URL implementations that do not have that property.

Thanks! I didn't notice that idempotence is clearly stated as a goal in the URL Standard. I understand now.

1. Always replace a trailing space in an opaque path with %20.

Proposal 1 means:

const url = new URL("data:blah  #a");
assertEquals(url.pathname, "blah %20");
url.hash = "";
assertEquals(url.pathname, "blah %20");

, right? This sounds best to me (out of 1/2/3/1b/2b/3b).

However, as far as I understand, the following URLs (as a result of serialization) are not equivalent to each other:

• "data:blah "
• "data:blah%20%20"
• "data:blah %20"

So every option proposed here seems a technically breaking change.

3. We always trim trailing spaces from opaque paths. Technically a breaking change, but overall it's better at ensuring everything stays consistent.

This doesn't seem a popular option here, however, this looks the simplest and easy-to-understand rule to me.

I assume we introduce a breaking change anyway.

We always trim trailing spaces from opaque paths. Technically a breaking change, but overall it's better at ensuring everything stays consistent.

This doesn't seem a popular option here, however, this looks the simplest and easy-to-understand rule to me.

I’d be fine with this, too.