Re: same-document references

On 7/2/11 8:36 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> It is specifically defined in terms of comparison of absolute (and
> possibly canonicalized) URIs.  It is written that way specifically
> because folks (including all of the major browser vendors at the time)
> wanted fragment-only references to remain same-document, regardless if
> the base URI is changed and *after* being transformed to absolute.

OK.

>> This is not interoperably implemented by UAs, last I checked, and you were asking about things that cause interop problems.
>
> Then let's test it and find out what people implement.

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Jun/0109.html

> I don't like the idea of changing full standards based on vague recollections.

Agreed.

> Please be specific with regard to what versions of browsers (or
> other URI processors) have been tested.

In the above test, I tested IE9 in standards mode, Firefox 4, Safari 5, 
Opera 11, Chrome 11.

>> And it would always work fine if the base URL was not set in the document. The question is whether it should still work if the base URL is different from the document URL and what the expected behavior is for all the contexts that accept links that are not<a>.
>
> Indeed.  The process for making changes to an internet standard

I'm not asking for a change.  I'm pointing out an area that may require 
further investigation if someone is interested in aspects of the 
standard where implementations do not match the standard.

Then, once such investigation has happened, we can worry about what (if 
anything) needs to change.

-Boris

Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 04:16:37 UTC