On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > I think this comes back to use cases. > > If the idea of having the zip is "here is stuff that should live in its own > world", then we do not want easy ways to get out of it via relative URIs. > > If the idea is to have "here is a fancy way of representing a directory" > then relative URIs should Just Work across the zip boundary, like they would > for any other directory. > > Which model are we working with here? Or some other one that doesn't match > either of those two?
I thought it was the former. It seems other relative URLs are likely mistakes and would not make the zip archive easily portable. Turning them into network errors and requiring <base> in the HTML or absolute URLs seems fine. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/