- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:15:24 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>, Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>, public-iri@w3.org
On 2011-06-23 18:03, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 6/23/11 3:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> The handling of URIs like "#foo" (and in particular what's used as the >>> base URI for them) has been an interop problem in the past, as I >>> recall... Some browsers use the document URI, some browsers use the base >>> URI, some do a mix depending on various other considerations... or >>> something. For some browsers I haven't been able to figure out what >>> they're doing. >> >> I agree. But this is an HTML-issue (deciding what the base URI is), not >> a URI/IRI issue. Yes, it should be solved, but it should be done in the >> HTML spec. > > You seem to misunderstand. Last I checked, the URI specs called for > "#foo" and "foo" to be treated differently in terms of resolution with > respect to a base URI.... Something about local vs non-local references > or the like. > > HTML does decide what the base URI is, of course. Yes, they are treated differently, one is a reference only consisting of a path, the other one only consisting of a fragment identifier. Their resolution is IMHO clearly described in RFC 3986; could you be a bit more specific about what your concern is? Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 16:16:05 UTC