At 09:01 24/02/2001 +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > The average consumer (and me too) will say it works with NS4.76 or IE5
> > but not with Mozilla, and therefore Mozilla is broke. For perfectly good
> > evidence of this, take a look at the bug page at how many times this has
> > been resubmitted. It is the largest number I have so far stumbled across
> > (though I have not looked at a lot).
>
>There's a bigger issue here. Who do we respect more? Old and broken
>browsers, or W3C and other internet standards (such as RFCs)? If we "find
>a meaning" for this sort of broken URL, what else should we guess at
>interpreting?
>
>Computers have to read this stuff, not humans.
Putting up a dialog with the offending URL giving them the chance to make
their own decision seems fine to me. Software can make more than
reasonable attempts at trying to interpret incomplete information, witness
typing the root of a domain name and getting http://www.root-domain.com
. If truth be told I can't really see the downside of interpolating a '/'
after http:/ but if it is too far a leap of reasoning to let it through let
the user decide.
Simon
>Gerv
===================================================
If I'd known I would spend so much time sorting and rearranging boxes
I'd have paid more attention at kindergarten
S.P. Lucy
