W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2009

Re: fragid navigation and pct-encoded

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:53:36 +0000 (UTC)
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904282144440.12381@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Just because the URL is invalid doesn't mean it has to be canonicalised.
> > There are plenty of other URLs that are syntactically invalid that Gecko
> > doesn't fix up, for example:
> > 
> >    http://example.com/%
> That might well not be intentional...

As far as I can tell it's interoperable amongst all the major browsers.

> > Anyway. Is the algorithm at:
> > 
> >    
> > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-indicated-part-of-the-document
> > 
> > Satisfactory?
> Could you point me to the part of the spec that defines what a UA is to 
> do with <a href>, exactly?  It's hard to evaluate this algorithm without 
> a reference for how that's handled on hand.

Following hyperlinks:

...leads to navigation:

...which (step 4) leads to navigating to a fragment identifier:

...which leads to traversing the history:

...which (step 6) leads to scrolling to the fragment identifier:

...which is defined in terms of the indicated part of the document:

> That said, there's one case I can think of offhand where the proposed 
> algorithm has undesirable behavior.  Any time the browser is given a URI 
> (not IRI)

Note that all URIs are IRIs.

> with a fragment (e.g. a Location HTTP header with a fragment), the only 
> way to make that fragment match an id is to have the ID URI-escaped, and 
> in particular have all non-ASCII characters URI-escaped.


> Then that same ID is a pain to match from IRIs (they also end up needing 
> to have those characters escaped).


Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 21:54:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:44 UTC