- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:29:32 +0200
- 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