- From: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@coredump.cx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:48:18 -0700
[ Julian Reschke ] > Observation: javascript: IMHO isn't a URI scheme (it just occupies a place > in the same lexical space), so maybe the right thing to do is to document it > as historic exception that only exists in browsers. In one of its modes, it's roughly equivalent to data: (javascript:"<h1>foo"), so I'm not sure the distinction is really that strong. > Maybe. Or it makes sense to do it one at a time :-). My only concern is that treating them separately had some funny side effects in the past - for example, right now, the origin inheritance for documents created from about:blank, data:.., and javascript:... URLs are completely different in current implementations, for no good reason. [ Daniel Holbert ] > However, fragment identifiers don't have any special significance in "javascript:" URIs, so the "javascript:" > handler ends up requesting the full URI, ignoring any distinction between the pre-# and post-# part. In the above use case, you could imagine # having the same purpose as for data, in principle. /mz
Received on Monday, 12 September 2011 13:48:18 UTC