W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2014

Re: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:32:10 -0400
Message-ID: <5436F0CA.6060806@intertwingly.net>
To: www-tag@w3.org
On 10/09/2014 03:44 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org]
>> Since when?
>> Is there anything like a public implementation report which tracks that?
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/URL#Browser_compatibility
> (Chrome 32, Firefox 26)

That page describes URLUtils.pathname as "a DOMString containing an 
initial '/' followed by the path of the URL."

Here are test cases where Firefox 32 and Chrome 37 produce different 
results, neither of which start with an initial '/':


There are also plenty of examples where the URL is badly formed and an 
empty string is returned by both.  A few examples:


>> What about other browsers?  Do they have plans?
> Yes, IE has it marked as "Under Consideration."

The developer.mozilla.org page indicates that Chrome, Firefox, and IE 
has "basic support", without defining what that means.  I will note that 
out of the 256 tests defined for URL spec, there isn't a single one 
where those three browsers return the same value for pathname.

Before anybody attempts to infer what point I am trying to make, I'll 
make it clear:

* Readers of this page will be done a disservice in that the information 
isn't technically accurate nor does it adequately capture the state of 

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  I didn't pick this as an example.

P.P.S.  For those who want to play with this data, I've placed the 
current results in JSON for at:

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:32:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:06 UTC