W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Non-hierarchical base URLs (was Re: draft-abarth-url-01 uploaded)

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 20:49:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4DC0A27D.1040100@mit.edu>
To: public-iri@w3.org
On 5/3/11 6:18 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Yes, I know what happens in the test case.  What I don't understand
> is why you think that case is worth testing.  What is the use case?
> Why would a web page include an iframe that loads "about:blank"
> (which itself is not interoperable) and then perform a sequence of
> javascript actions that include a relative reference?

I don't know "why", but the definitely do this.  They don't explicitly 
load "about:blank", by the way.  They do something like this:

   <iframe name="x"></iframe>
   <script>
     window.frames["x"].document.body.innerHTML =
       "<img src='myImage.gif'>";
   </script>

(well, typically more complicated but that's what it comes down to). 
And then expect that image to load.

> I don't have a problem with HTML5 prohibiting the use of certain
> URI schemes as a base URI, assuming the HTML parsers revert to
> whatever valid base URI was previously active by context, but
> I would like to make standards decisions based on real examples.

I think it's important to separate the idea of "how to determine the 
base URI" from "how to resolve the given string wrt the given base URI". 
  The latter is on-topic for this group.  The former, imo, is not. 
Based on previous comments on this list, I think Julian and Maciej 
agree.  If someone doesn't, please speak up!

The behavior of <iframes> showing about:blank is in the "how to 
determine the base URI" bucket, as far as I can tell.

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 00:49:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:01 GMT