W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-archive@w3.org from September 2012)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:29:32 +0200
Message-ID: <5086718C.6080001@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: uri@w3.org
On 2012-10-23 11:29, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-23 11:09, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?word1=url&word2=uri
>>
>> I was referring to "whatever you find in @href" as opposed to "what RFC 3986
>> says it is".
>
> Ah okay, well if you have relative URLs and absolute URLs, it makes
> sense to call them URLs together.

"whatever you find in a @href" is neither a relative URL nor an absolute 
URL. I don't think it's helpful to insist on that.

>>> This was about demonstrating that STD 66 is not a suitable interface.
>>> (I thought you suggested that. If not, sorry, hopefully it helps
>>> someone else.)
>>
>> OK, so if browsers put /% on the wire *and* servers rely on that, that would
>> be an issue. However, I'm not convinced the latter is the case.
>
> I had not really expected otherwise.

Yes, because you haven't convinced me. Do you happen to have a test case?

I just tried

<html>
    <body>
       <p>
         <a href="/%">Test /%</a>
       </p>
       <p>
         <a href="%">Test %</a>
       </p>
       <p>
         <a href="?%">Test ?%</a>
       </p>
    </body>
</html>

and of these, IE doesn't treat the first two as links (it just doesn't 
send any network request).

That's why I said I'd like to see a concrete list of issues (real and 
perceived), so that we can test them across browsers and find out 
whether they *need* to break the spec.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:30:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC