- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:50:47 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WhatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Nov 4, 2014, at 15:32 , Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 4:24 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> at the moment I am more interested in understanding what the best behavior might be than majority voting > > I don't think there is disagreement about what better behavior might > be in this case, if we skip over the details for the moment. really? Safari, Chrome and Opera all return what to me is eminently sensible stuff://www.app.com/a/b/banana Only Firefox and your parser compose ‘banana’ against 'stuff://www.app.com/a/b/' to make ‘banana’. (I don’t have IE to hand at the moment). Whether they do this because it’s sensible or because it’s the RFC behavior, I do not know, of course. But being future-resilient (we’ll never be fully future proof, I agree) seems pretty desirable. Why is ‘banana’ the better answer here? I assume it fixes some other issue we haven’t explicitly mentioned? > However, > how likely is it in your estimation that Apple changes the URL parser > it ships in this regard? I have no idea. I am not in charge of the products we ship :-(, I just try to help the standards landscape include standards we could or would like to support. Clearly I would not yet be advocating for such a change (but I am asking questions in order to learn and tease out the issues, not oppose, right now). David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 15:51:38 UTC