- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:34:03 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28779
Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
--- Comment #4 from Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com> ---
Then the HTML5 spec needs rewording. "[T]he specification that registered
Refresh as a header field" (comment 2) is HTML5, sec. 4.2.5.3. In that section,
see Refresh State, step 23, which says, "Resolve the url value to an absolute
URL, relative to the meta element." While the content can be an absolute URL,
this step implies that the content can instead just be a relative URL, but one
that is "relative to the meta element", rather than to the base element. If it
is really the same as for other URLs that can be relative to the base element,
then this section should say that or should omit the phrasing about "relative
to the meta element". What is now in the HTML5 step is confusing, which I think
is why the stackoverflow question was introduced in the first place.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 26 June 2015 02:34:07 UTC