W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2009

[Bug 8236] New: 1) why a query is stored in the `search' attribute and a URL fragment is stored in the `fragment' attribute? The naming is a bit confusing. 2) Why the is no restrictions for the `port' attribute: an integer in a range [0-65535]; 3) The getter condition fo

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:30:57 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-8236-2486@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8236

           Summary: 1) why a query is stored in the `search' attribute and a
                    URL fragment is stored in the `fragment' attribute? The
                    naming is a bit confusing. 2) Why the is no restrictions
                    for the `port' attribute: an integer in a range [0-
                    65535]; 3) The getter condition fo
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
                    work/#interfaces-for-url-manipulation
        OS/Version: other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: HTML5 spec bugs
        AssignedTo: dave.null@w3.org
        ReportedBy: contributor@whatwg.org
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: ian@hixie.ch, mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org


Section:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#interfaces-for-url-manipulation

Comment:
1) why a query is stored in the `search' attribute and a URL fragment is stored
in the `fragment' attribute? The naming is a bit confusing. 2) Why the is no
restrictions for the `port' attribute: an integer in a range [0-65535]; 3) The
getter condition for the `port' attribute is unclear – how a port may be
hierarchical and contain server-based naming authority? 4) The setter condition
for the `port' attribute (“Remove any characters in the new value that are
not in the range U+0030 DIGIT ZERO (0) to U+0039 DIGIT NINE (9). If the
resulting string is empty, set it to a single U+0030 DIGIT ZERO character
(0).”) is extra and complex and may introduce ambiguities. For example, if
the assigning string is `a1b2c3', then, according to the setter preprocessor
for the `port' attribute, the string `123' will be assigned. Proposal: make
`port' as a plain number of type short. 5) Why there is no restrictions for the
`host' attribute: pattern like `^[a-Z0-9][-.a-Z0-9]{0,63}$ without the trailing
`-'? 6) It is unclear how URI shall be represented, especially in the `host'
attribute: either as it is (like `www.смешно.com') or in IDN
representation (like `www.xn—e1aneel8b.com')? 7) The restrictions for the
`host' attribute (loot at the setter condition: “The new value is not the
empty string ”) makes it impossible to use data URL (like
`data:,A%20a%20test'). 8) Why usre@passwords attributes are absent? Though, it
is not encouraged to use them in URL, the are still in URL spec. 9) Proposal:
the list of supported protocols may be defined explicitly maybe as a constants
(HTTP, FTP, MAIL, HTTPS etc.)

Posted from: 84.215.175.98


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 22:31:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:05 UTC