W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: URL comparison

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:56:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBwkbpnKA4S_SXUXhxW9WUvX_yJLz0JK0Ojs_G_VaOz9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sam L'ecuyer" <sam@cateches.is>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:41 AM,  <sam@cateches.is> wrote:
>> Requests I've heard before I looked at :local-link():
>>
>> * Simple equality
>> * Ignore fragment
>> * Ignore fragment and query
>> * Further normalization (browsers don't normalize as much as they
>> could during parsing, but maybe this should be an operation to modify
>> the URL object rather than a comparison option)
>
> What about links that point to a null URL with a hash? ie <a href="#back-to-top">
> Obviously this is a local link, but it doesn't really fit into the
> host/path/query segmentation that's defined with the :local-link([0|1|2...]) definition[1].
> Perhaps a :local-link(hash) keyword would be appropriate so that we could select links within the page?

That's what :local-link (without the ()) is for - it selects links
within the same page.  That is, links where the url is identical,
ignoring the hash.


>> However, :local-link() also ignores port/scheme which is not typical.
>
> Isn't it perfectly reasonable to expect that a different scheme/port is running an entirely different application?

Yes, which is why Anne says that we should include port/scheme in the
comparison.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 19:56:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:10 UTC