- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 04:11:24 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Jake Archibald <jakearchibald@google.com>
On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > It doesn't appear straightforward to test if two URL objects reference > the > > same path. The serialization algorithm has as flag for omitting the > > fragment, but not the query. Is there something in the API that I'm > missing > > that would make this easier than custom-serializing 2 URLs to omit > queries > > and then test string equality? > > new URL(path, base).pathname == new URL(path2, base).pathname ought to > work. > But if I've been vended a URL object from some API, I first have to compare the bases. I'd like a way to ask something like "is the full URL up-to-and-including this component the same?" E.g., if I have an API that's handed two URLs (a and b), I'd like to be able to write something like: if (a.toString("path") == b.toString("path")) { ... } > > The word "search" seems drived from window.location's use of that. Is it > > only included for compat with window.location? if so, can we drop it and > > spec window.location to use a subclass that provides it? > > It's used by <a>, <area>, Location, and WorkerLocation. I think we > should just embrace that the string variant is named search > personally. > I'm less fussed on this point, but I do think naming matters. If we can do better, I think we should.
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 12:11:51 UTC