- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:52:06 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28779
Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P2 |P3
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #5 from Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> ---
(In reply to Nick Levinson from comment #4)
> 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."
That's a conformance requirement for UA implementors, not a statement for
authors. If you press the "Add developer views" button in the document, that
entire section will disappear.
> 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,
It's only confusing if you try to read it as being something that's intended
for authors to need to understand, as opposed to UA implementors.
> which I think is why the stackoverflow question was
> introduced in the first place.
I thought you were the same person who wrote that stackoverflow question.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 27 June 2015 05:52:08 UTC