- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 20:49:01 -0400
- 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 UTC