Ports zig-uri to stdlib.

[ikskuh]

Implements #14176

[wooster0]

The TODO said "TODO: redo this implementation according to RFC 1738" and that RFC is the Uniform Resource Locators (URL) RFC.
The RFC 3986 implemented here is the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) RFC, so I wonder if this should be renamed to std.URI.
There is a difference between a URL and a URI and the library itself seems to use that term too.

A URL is a specific type of URI, so a URI seems more general, so I think it would make sense to rename.

[wooster0]

Suggested change

	test "Special test" {
	// This is for all of you code readers ♥
	_ = try parse("https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ&feature=youtu.be&t=0");
	}

[ikskuh]

Not sure if i want to remove that. It's a very important URL

[AndersonTorres]

Rick-rolled by Nixpkgs! OH NO!

[matu3ba]

Is this post still relevant https://perishablepress.com/stop-using-unsafe-characters-in-urls/#unsafe-characters?

A Dangerous Trend

Note: Things have changed a lot with Google and URI specification. So the following information may be
outdated, but the example serves to illustrate how developers should be mindful of specification when 
crafting URIs in applications.

Also:

Note that RFC 1738 is now obsolete, however the information remains useful in the general sense, and
is shared below for educational and reference purposes.

Did you also check the issue list on the standard? https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/labs/webarch/trunk/uri/rev-2002/issues.html

[ikskuh]

@matu3ba i never took a look at the older uri specifications, i've made the implementation right after RFC 3986, so it should be up-to-date in those regards. I can double-check later tho

[ikskuh]

Is this post still relevant https://perishablepress.com/stop-using-unsafe-characters-in-urls/#unsafe-characters?

A Dangerous Trend

Note: Things have changed a lot with Google and URI specification. So the following information may be
outdated, but the example serves to illustrate how developers should be mindful of specification when
crafting URIs in applications.
Also:

Note that RFC 1738 is now obsolete, however the information remains useful in the general sense, and
is shared below for educational and reference purposes.
Did you also check the issue list on the standard? https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/labs/webarch/trunk/uri/rev-2002/issues.html

I think those issues are issues with the RFC per se and should not be addressed in RFC compliant implementations. I think our implementation is fine for now

[truemedian]

scheme is not optional, all forms of URI require a scheme (just like they require a path)

[andrewrk]

what about host?

[truemedian]

URI encompass URNs, which have no authority. The most simple URI is scheme:something where something is the "path"

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#section-3

The following are two example URIs and their component parts:

    foo://example.com:8042/over/there?name=ferret#nose
    \_/   \______________/\_________/ \_________/ \__/
     |           |            |            |        |
  scheme     authority       path        query   fragment
     |   _____________________|__
    / \ /                        \
    urn:example:animal:ferret:nose