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: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:50:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78gQq6X8QhNmtV4ismNP7ge0XOQLojCqVv5FYsWK-svB+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: uri@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> "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.

Nobody is. I plan on defining relative URL/absolute URL only as what
is valid. The input to the parser can just be href's attribute value.
As far as developers are concerned, they are to put a relative
URL/absolute URL as the value of the href attribute, but indeed nobody
can prevent them from putting something else in there and as they have
in legacy pages we need to deal with that somehow.

> 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).

I wish had more easy access to IE to reverse engineer what it's doing.
Did you test <a>.pathname and such too? If it still sends ?% the point
that STD 66 is not workable still stands. (And again I just gave
examples here, to be exhaustive you need to test all prohibited code
points.) This also does not test the fragment case.

> 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.

I did not start out by looking at what is wrong with STD 66 but rather
with what browsers and to a lesser extent curl/wget etc. are doing.
Unfortunately I don't have a Windows license. So making such a list of
issues would take a rather large chunk of my time that given past
experience I'm not sure is worth it.

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:51:10 UTC

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