- 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