- From: duanyao <duanyao@ustc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:53:32 +0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: David Kendal <me@dpk.io>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
在 2017年04月17日 21:39, Anne van Kesteren 写道: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 3:32 PM, duanyao <duanyao@ustc.edu> wrote: >> So you mean file: protocol is not portable? For absolute file: url, true; >> for relative url, almost not true. >> >> When writing web pages, no one use absolute file: urls in practice, so this >> is a non-issue. > Neither is portable or part of the web, since you don't allocate > resources on someone else their machine that way. (And even in the > sense that you mean it, they're not portable due to the different > styles of matching, case-insensitive, Unicode normalization, custom > variants of Unicode normalization, bytes vs code points, etc.) > > When we want to write a web application portable across multiple server OSes, these issues could happen too. The rules of thumb are (1) assume case-sensitive but don't create file names which differ only in casing. (2) avoid characters subject to unicode normalization in file names. I think "portable" is never absolute. There are always incompatibilities between browsers, and even once standardized feature can be deprecated/removed in future, e.g. `window.showModalDialog()`, `<applet>` and `<keygen>`.
Received on Monday, 17 April 2017 15:54:38 UTC