Mark Anderson wrote:
>
> End users should be given the option of what to do in this scenario.
> Not to interpret the link as a relative one, when logic tells me that
> this would be wrong (despite the 95-99% figure thrown about here, I've
> yet to see a *single* link in my years of Web surfing that uses this
> broken syntax to indicate a relative link).
A bug report has been filed about this "bug" on bugzilla 14
different times, by 14 different people. And I will bet that the
archives of these newsgroups contain more reports, such as mine, that
never made it into bugzilla.
Likely the reason you have never seen such link in the past
is because the browser you were using handled it in the way the web page
creator expected. And that is because the web page creator used one of
those browsers to test his pages.
--
My real email is akamail.com@dclark (or something like that).
