Re: [whatwg/url] URL.relative proposal (#421)

> import is not the only use case for relative URLs.

I know this but `./`-prefixed urls work *everywhere* relative urls are accepted in the spec which is why this would make the most sense as it's the most portable.

While `import` is the only thing I'm aware of that requires `./` for relative urls, this is still a pretty big use case especially with html/css modules + `import:` urls it'll be more important to be able to construct these urls easily.

Regarding `//` urls, I think there should probably be two APIs given there's two types of "relative url" defined in the spec: [path relative](https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#ref-for-path-relative-url-string) and [scheme relative](https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#ref-for-scheme-relative-url-string).

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/421#issuecomment-516476889