- From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:44:33 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-iri@w3.org
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 6/20/11 12:03 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> Would you be interested in treating \ and / equivalently in more >> schemes in order to converge behavior with IE, Chrome, and Safari? > > I'm not the one making that call; in fact I'm trying to get out of the > business of dealing with our networking code... So I can only comment on > what we do right now and maybe on why we do it. Without the relevant decision makers, we're unlikely to make progress on a spec that matches implementations. One reasonable perspective is that not having a reality-matching spec here isn't causing much pain in the world, so we should abandon this project. > Historically we have been unwilling to do the above (obviously, since we > haven't done it); I can't recall how much was a matter of doing what the > spec says as much as possible and how much was specific use cases that the > behavior precludes (e.g. using unescaped \ in filenames when the file has > that name on the (non-Windows) server). Of course, folks who want to name such files will want to use the escaped form of \ in order for their site to work in browsers other than Firefox. > Note that the Chrome and Safari behavior is limited to some particular URI > schemes or classes of URI schemes too. Testcase: > > data:text/html,<b>bold<\b>or not > > which shows the bold text "bold<\b>or not". I don't have IE9 on hand right > this second to check its behavior. Correct. It's limited to "hierarchical" schemes, such as http, ftp, etc (at least in Chrome). Adam
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 04:45:32 UTC