- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:57:24 +0200
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- CC: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-iri@w3.org
On 2011-06-20 10:47, Adam Barth wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> On 2011-06-20 10:03, Adam Barth wrote: >>> Even just trivial things need to be cleaned up, like: >>> >>> http://ExAmple.CoM/ >> >> What needs to be cleaned up here? > > * FF canonicalize('http://GoOgLe.CoM/') is 'http://google.com/' > * IE canonicalize('http://GoOgLe.CoM/') is 'http://google.com/' > * KR canonicalize('http://GoOgLe.CoM/') is 'http://google.com/' > * SA canonicalize('http://GoOgLe.CoM/') should be http://google.com/. > Was http://GoOgLe.CoM/. > > IE, Firefox, and Chrome convert host names to lower case. Safari does not. Yes. Why is this a problem? What does it have to do with URI/IRI parsing or resolution? >>> http://www.example.com/##asdf >> >> Either reject the reference as invalid, or treat this as a fragment with >> value "#asdf". >> >> *How* to handle fragments depends on media types, not URI parsing, so I'm >> not sure we should try to answer this here... > > FF canonicalize('http://www.example.com/##asdf') is > 'http://www.example.com/##asdf' > IE canonicalize('http://www.example.com/##asdf') is > 'http://www.example.com/##asdf' > KR canonicalize('http://www.example.com/##asdf') is > 'http://www.example.com/##asdf' > SA canonicalize('http://www.example.com/##asdf') should be > http://www.example.com/##asdf. Was http://www.example.com/#%23asdf. > > The question is whether # occurring in the fragment should be coerced > to be %-escaped. My reading of the evidence here says "no." Again, what's to do here? You can observe this in the DOM, so it's a DOM issue. You can observe the *behavior* when navigating, and that's a media type issue. > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> On 2011-06-20 10:24, Chris Weber wrote: >>> 6) Handling percent-encoded values in various components >> >> Is there a *problem* related to this? >> >> I can see that the exposed DOM properties vary on how things are >> canonicalized, but that's a DOM issue, not a URI/IRI issue. > > You can play games about who needs to spec this stuff, but it needs to > be specced. In implementations, this work is done by the URL > processing code, not by the DOM processing code. I'm not playing games, I'm trying to understand what needs to be done *here*. And I don't believe this belongs here (nor other DOM questions like how the port number defaulting works). Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 08:58:15 UTC