On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
Looking through the spec again, there is nothing about backslashes in
URI's path being treated as a forward slash, behaviour needed for
compatibility for quite a few websites.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Gervase Markham wrote:
I would be rather
On 6/27/08, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
However, we can't specify this for all URIs (just saying). Flipping raw
backslashes (even though they should really be encoded) in a
href=mailto:uridata; for example, should not be done.
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
...
Besides the backslash thing, there are a number of URI processing rules
that browsers must follow for web compatibility which are either not
required by or directly contradictory to the URI RFCs. Documenting these
and fixing the relevant RFCs would be a valuable
Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:43:55 +0200, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
...
Besides the backslash thing, there are a number of URI processing
rules that browsers must follow for web compatibility which are
either not required by or
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:24:54 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It seems to me that at least this thread does not point out bugs in
RFC3986 or RFC3987, but problems in user agents that do not follow these
specs. Or stated otherwise: in reality, URIs in HTML documents are not
Looking through the spec again, there is nothing about backslashes in
URI's path being treated as a forward slash, behaviour needed for
compatibility for quite a few websites.
- Geoffrey Sneddon
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
Looking through the spec again, there is nothing about backslashes in
URI's path being treated as a forward slash, behaviour needed for
compatibility for quite a few websites.
I would be rather surprised if that were true, given that Firefox
doesn't do it and I've
Gervase Markham wrote:
Looking through the spec again, there is nothing about backslashes in
URI's path being treated as a forward slash, behaviour needed for
compatibility for quite a few websites.
I would be rather surprised if that were true, given that Firefox
doesn't do it and I've
On 11/04/07, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
Looking through the spec again, there is nothing about backslashes in
URI's path being treated as a forward slash, behaviour needed for
compatibility for quite a few websites.
I would be rather surprised if that
At 3:13 PM +0100 UTC, on 4/11/07, Gervase Markham wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
Looking through the spec again, there is nothing about backslashes in
URI's path being treated as a forward slash, behaviour needed for
compatibility for quite a few websites.
I would be rather surprised if
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:38:11 +0200, Jon Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is this more the realm of an RFC (3986 and 3987) instead of HTML5?
Jon Barnett
Probably, unless you restrict the special handling to a few HTML
attributes.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:13:09 +0100, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Looking through the spec again, there is nothing about backslashes in
URI's path being treated as a forward slash, behaviour needed for
compatibility for quite a few websites.
I would be rather surprised if that
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:02:39 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking through the spec again, there is nothing about backslashes in
URI's path being treated as a forward slash, behaviour needed for
compatibility for quite a few websites.
I think it can be added.
RFC 1738
13 matches
Mail list logo
