W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2010

[Bug 8953] URL decomp. IDL attributes when parsing fails

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:26:35 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Ni1iV-0006pg-9E@wiggum.w3.org>

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX

--- Comment #10 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2010-02-18 08:26:34 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Here is a test case that I believe expresses Julian's intent:
> <a id="link" href="http://a[b].example.org/">Some link</a>
> <pre>
> <script>
> var link = document.getElementById("link");
> document.writeln(link.protocol);
> document.writeln(link.hostname);
> document.writeln(link.pathname);
> </script>
> </pre>

That case is already defined. The spec says that it should write three empty
strings. See the paragraph starting "On getting, if the input is an absolute
URL" and ending "Otherwise, the attribute must return the empty string." in the
Interfaces for URL manipulation section.

(In reply to comment #8)
> Appreciated; although I don't think this is "new" information.

It's new because it gives an actual case, unlike your report, which did not
give enough information to determine the validity of the report.

(In reply to comment #9)
> I think this is a bug in the URL spec by the way. When it says that parsing
> fails it should also say what each of the components are.

There is no time as far as I am aware where the components are used if parsing
fails. If there was such a time, that would be a valid bug.

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: see above - there's no bug here

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 Thursday, 18 February 2010 08:26:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:11 UTC