- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 12:39:41 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On 5/4/16 12:17 PM, fantasai wrote: > Imho there are three options, based on this thread > > 1. Relative URLs stay relative. If you change the base URL, > we resolve against that new base URL, which may or may > not result in a change in resource depending on whether > it absolutizes to something new or not. > > 2. Relative URLs are absolutized. If you change the base URL, > nothing happens. Unless it's a fragment URL, in which case > we handle those specially and don't absolutize them so they > stay relative. > > 3. Relative URLs are absolutized. If you change the base URL, > nothing happens. Unless it's a fragment URL, in which case > instead of absolutizing them, we turn them into a special > relative-fragment function, which stays relative. > > Imho options #2 and #3 are silly and weird. I'm happy with #1. > But I have no idea what you're proposing or why. I suspect the proposal is option 2. That seems to be what WebKit/blink implement, at least in some cases (they're not terribly consistent about it) last I looked at their source... Is option 2 black-box distinguishable from option 3? -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 16:40:23 UTC