Re: Progress on URL spec

* Adam Barth wrote:
>Rather, I'd say that there's an interoperability problem to solve,
>which is the motivation for this work.  Now, how to resolve the
>difference in behavior is an interesting question.  What matters in
>resolving this question, at least to browser vendors, is what existing
>content on the web expects browsers to do.  That's a question we can
>answer with data, not with opinion.  Do you have data to support which
>behavior, if implemented by a browser, would result in greater
>compatibility with existing web content?

You are welcome to contribute data to justify why Microsoft should make
Internet Explorer less standards-compliant and more inconsistent with
other resource identifier parsers, including their own, like the one in
the .NET framework, in an effort to improve compatibility with invalid
content that only "works" in "Firefox, Chrome, and Safari" due to bugs.

>Thanks.  If you have further examples of interesting input strings,
>that's appreciated.  Blanket statements about "plausibility" are not
>appreciated.

The next thing would be that you define "http://example.org;" as equiva-
lent to "http://example.org/;" (or rather as having a path of ";" which
is even more silly) which is also a violation of RFC 3986 and not what
Internet Explorer does. However, I cannot think of a more basic test
than checking what the leading implementation does with respect to re-
quirements that contradict the established standard, and we have already
established that you did not perform these most basic tests.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Sunday, 5 September 2010 05:20:54 UTC