Re: minor fix for url-syntax-02

Foteos Macrides (MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu)
Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:36:35 -0500 (EST)


Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:36:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Subject: Re: minor fix for url-syntax-02
To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Message-Id: <01IDICQ1XTK6003M9A@SCI.WFBR.EDU>

Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> wrote:
>If a form leaves out the ACTION entirely, is this really an issue for
>relative URL calculation? I'm not sure that the behavior needs to
>determine what ACTION="." and ACTION="" should mean.

	You're drawing a distinction, so to speak, between NULL versus
a zero-length string.  I just tried:

<FORM METHOD="" ENCTYPE="" ACTION="">

on some deployed browsers and got the default GET as the method,
the default "appplication/x-www-form-urlencoded" as the enctype,
and the base (not necessarily the current document's URL) as
the action.  But that's OK 'cuz in the real world the atttributes
indeed would be omitted, rather than included with a zero-length
value.  Basically, you're elaborating on the meaning of "blank"
in the -02 draft.  If the attribute that takes a URL component
is present in the tag, but has only a fragment, or a zero-length
string, then the current document's URL is filled in:

<A HREF="">  or <A HREF="#fragment">

mean:

<A HREF="(current document)" or <A HREF="(current document)#fragment">

but:

<FORM> or <ISINDEX>

mean:

<FORM ACTION="(base)"> or <ISINDEX HREF="(base)">

	If that were spelled out (in sentences) in the draft, I think it
would meet with consensus, but would the POSIX regex string in the draft
also need tweaking to indicate that unambiguously?

				Fote

=========================================================================
 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
=========================================================================