On 7/3/2013 2:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Benjamin Smedberg
<benja...@smedbergs.us> wrote:
Both resource: and chrome: have host names and need to support relative
URIs. Neither of them is a candidate for standardization, though. We should
just add them as special known schemes in our parser.
Well, either we have to standardize their parsing behavior, limit
their parsing behavior to chrome, or think of some third alternative.
We do not want
url = new URL(rel, base)
to differ across engines for any rel or base
I don't understand why it matters. chrome: and resource: are both
gecko-specific extensions and we have no desire to standardize them.
Chromium uses a different scheme for their chrome: protocol.
Web content typically is not allowed to link or load chrome resources,
although there is an ancient exception for chrome://global that was
included for remote XUL and may not be necessary any more. But I don't
think we should either try to standardize these protocols, nor should we
try to change URL parsing behavior depending on whether we're chrome or
content.
--BDS
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
