- From: duanyao <duanyao@ustc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 21:32:43 +0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: David Kendal <me@dpk.io>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
在 2017年04月17日 21:04, Anne van Kesteren 写道: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, duanyao <duanyao@ustc.edu> wrote: >> 在 2017年04月15日 02:09, Domenic Denicola 写道: >>> file: URLs are part of the web, e.g. parsing such URLs when used in <a> >>> tags, just like gopher: URLs or mailto: URLs. The behavior once navigating >>> to file: URLs (or gopher: URLs, or mailto: URLs) is off the web, and outside >>> the scope of the WHATWG's work. >> This still doesn't explain why file: protocol CAN'T be part of the web (and >> inside the the scope of WHATWG). > Because it's a mechanism for addressing resources on a specific OS. > It's not a mechanism for addressing resources on the web. > > So you mean file: protocol is not portable? For absolute file: url, true; for relative url, almost not true. When writing web pages, no one use absolute file: urls in practice, so this is a non-issue.
Received on Monday, 17 April 2017 13:33:51 UTC