- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 13:12:06 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- 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 Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > 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 Done. Adam
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:13:16 UTC