- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:17:46 -0800
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> >>> wrote: >>>> That sounds good to me. In general I think it would be great if there were >>>> standard APIs for URI/IRI construction, parsing and resolution... >>> >>> Yes, that sounds pretty good to me too. >> >> This has annoyed me for a while too. I'll write up a spec. > > Here's a sketch: > > https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1r_VTFKApVOaNIkocrg0z-t7lZgzisTuGTXkdzAk4gLU&hl=en It appears [1] that there are sites out there which use URL as a property already, which isn't very surprising. The good news is that if we ensure that the property is replacable then it seems like things will work. So all that should be needed is the right WebIDL magic, or right prose, to define that the URL property is replaceable. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=617296 / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 21:18:41 UTC