- From: David Sheets <sheets@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:47:48 +0100
- To: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> >> 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." > > > The high order bit on the web is "is this feature implemented interoperably > in multiple browsers (and specifically, the browsers I care about > supporting)". Unlike standards like USB, which are designed and implemented > atomically, the web platform is implemented a bit at a time, by a browser at > a time. If you insist on calling a set of browsers the web platform, please include web servers, deployed software, and development libraries which also implement the standards you seek to achieve. I say this because there are been shockingly little discussion on this list regarding convergence of libraries or deployed systems. > For users of the platform, "I tested it and it runs unprefixed on the > browsers I care about" is a far better measure of stability than "it is > marked as HTML5" or "it has reached CR". > > In theory, features should advance along the standards process at the same > time as they reach interoperable stability. In practice, changes in the > platform are extremely granular, and the process of advancing features along > the process involves many details that do not map onto practical stability. > > I am strongly in favor of better stability signaling in the WHATWG process, > but at least it gets the basics of stability on the web right. > >> >> >> Here are test cases where Firefox 32 and Chrome 37 produce different >> results, neither of which start with an initial '/': >> >> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/8e738a5350 >> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/010d3b8e54 >> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/f95c57aa35 >> >> There are also plenty of examples where the URL is badly formed and an >> empty string is returned by both. A few examples: >> >> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/8e4dba714b >> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/a7e821cc81 >> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/aa0a198c57 >> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/723aa80622 >> >>>> 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 >> interop. >> >> - 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: >> >> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/09/urltest-results.json >> >
Received on Friday, 10 October 2014 09:57:41 UTC