- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:17:07 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > I think this comes back to use cases. > > If the idea of having the zip is "here is stuff that should live in its own > world", then we do not want easy ways to get out of it via relative URIs. > > If the idea is to have "here is a fancy way of representing a directory" > then relative URIs should Just Work across the zip boundary, like they would > for any other directory. > > Which model are we working with here? Or some other one that doesn't match > either of those two? I thought it was the former. It seems other relative URLs are likely mistakes and would not make the zip archive easily portable. Turning them into network errors and requiring <base> in the HTML or absolute URLs seems fine. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 11:17:41 UTC