W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:41:48 +0000 (UTC)
To: Christian Schmidt <w3.org@chsc.dk>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0811292238210.17414@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Christian Schmidt wrote:
> 
> Christian Schmidt wrote:
> > It may be an idea to disallow the URL consisting of the empty string, 
> > i.e. <img src="">.
>
> FWIW Firefox now ignores <img src=...> when src is a reference to the 
> containing document: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=444931

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> 
> No, it ignores <img src=""> when the base URI for the image node is the 
> document URI (which isn't quite the same thing as what you said).

What Christian said appears to be more accurate:

http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%3Cbase%20href%3D%22image%22%3E%3Cimg%20src%3D%22%22%3E

I don't understand why we would define things this way though. If the 
server wants to return different files each time, and return an image once 
and a document another time and a style sheet a third time, why not?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 29 November 2008 22:42:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:27 GMT