- From: Marcos Cáceres <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 19:34:56 -0700
- To: w3c/manifest <manifest@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/manifest/pull/1122/review/2051280927@github.com>
@marcoscaceres commented on this pull request. > + for a matching application. However, since old versions of this spec + (and, possibly, old user agents) did not remove the [=URL/fragment=] + from the [=URL=] at parse time, and relied only on + [=URL/equals/exclude fragments|excluding fragments=] during + comparisons, there may be historical app data with [=URL/fragments=] + in the <code>[=manifest/id=]</code>. Therefore, it is best practice for user + agents to [=URL/equals/exclude fragments=] even when comparing two + [=URLs=] that should not have any fragments. Removing the use of RFC2119 keywords: ```suggestion for a matching application. However, since old versions of this spec (and, possibly, old user agents) did not remove the [=URL/fragment=] from the [=URL=] at parse time, and relied only on [=URL/equals/exclude fragments|excluding fragments=] during comparisons, historical app data could include [=URL/fragments=] in the <code>[=manifest/id=]</code>. Therefore, it is best practice for user agents to [=URL/equals/exclude fragments=] even when comparing two [=URLs=] that typically lack fragments. ``` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/1122#pullrequestreview-2051280927 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <w3c/manifest/pull/1122/review/2051280927@github.com>
Received on Sunday, 12 May 2024 02:35:01 UTC