- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:06:40 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 11, 2010, at 12:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de >> > wrote: >>> I don't see any kind of interoperability here, even not for the >>> simplest >>> test cases. >> Real-world usage is often simpler than even the simplest test-cases. >> Typical URLs contain no spaces, no Unicode characters, and no weird >> stuff like multiple hash characters. These APIs are realistically >> useful even if they start to become unreliable for slightly less >> common types of URLs. > > Even if they don't agree whether the path starts with "/" or not? > >>> Maybe it's time to deprecate this mess (does anybody use this?) >> Yes, definitely. I can find a whole bunch of uses in MediaWiki, for >> instance. The existing interface will have to be specced anyway. > > The question is how to spec it. Right now the UAs vary *a lot*. I > recommend that UA implementers have a look at the test results and > provide feedback whether they want to change their implementations. > Of the browsers I tried (Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome), Firefox had the most green and I don't see any problem with changing Safari to match. There is one behavior checked by these tests that seem potentially unwise: trying to differentiate between URLs that had particular percent-escaping in the original source vs. equivalent ones that did not. All browsers I tried seem to either consistently escape or consistently unescape in any given component. Unless IE differentiates I don't think we can conclude that this is required behavior. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 09:07:14 UTC