- 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