Re: [whatwg] WF2 - form action=

2008-10-28 Thread Ian Hickson
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Philip Taylor wrote:

 WF2 says:
 
  When the [form element's action] attribute is absent, UAs must act
 as if the action attribute was the empty string, which is a relative
 URI reference, and would thus point to the current document (or the
 specified base URI, if any).
 
 But:
 http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%3Cbase%20href%3D%22http%3A//google.com%22%3E%3Cform%3E%3Cinput%20type%3Dsubmit%3E
 
 In IE7, FF2, FF3, Opera 9.2, it ignores the base URI and always submits 
 to the current page. In Safari 3, it does take account of the base URI. 
 In all, form action= does the same as form. In all, form 
 action=. does take account of the base URI. Perhaps it would be 
 sensible to follow the majority.

Done.


On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Thomas Broyer wrote:
 
 Wouldn't that be a violation of RFC3986?
 
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.4

I guess so. Noted.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'


Re: [whatwg] WF2 - form action=

2007-07-09 Thread Jonas Sicking

Thomas Broyer wrote:

2007/7/1, Philip Taylor:

WF2 says:

  When the [form element's action] attribute is absent, UAs must act
as if the action attribute was the empty string, which is a relative
URI reference, and would thus point to the current document (or the
specified base URI, if any).

But: 
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%3Cbase%20href%3D%22http%3A//google.com%22%3E%3Cform%3E%3Cinput%20type%3Dsubmit%3E 



In IE7, FF2, FF3, Opera 9.2, it ignores the base URI and always
submits to the current page. In Safari 3, it does take account of the
base URI. In all, form action= does the same as form. In all,
form action=. does take account of the base URI. Perhaps it would
be sensible to follow the majority.


Wouldn't that be a violation of RFC3986?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.4

Are there pages in the wild relying on that behavior (i.e. has Apple
received a bug report for pages breaking in Safari? [1])

[1] Hmm, seems like there is such a bug report, with people
misunderstanding RFC3986 §4.4 and relying on such broken behaviors:
http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7763
(for the first example, it's at
http://www.polytechnique.fr/eleves/login.php, there's a base
href=http://www.polytechnique.fr/eleves/; and form action=
expected to be POSTed to login.php)


See also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297761 where it 
was reported that we changed the behavior for firefox 1 and thereby 
broke sites.


I actually seem to recall the spec saying that action= meant to submit 
to the current page. Though I can't find that in the spec right now so I 
might be wrong.


So the answer is that this is a web compat issue. How much of the web 
would break if we changed this behavior is anyones guess unfortunately.


/ Jonas


Re: [whatwg] WF2 - form action=

2007-07-01 Thread Thomas Broyer

2007/7/1, Philip Taylor:

WF2 says:

  When the [form element's action] attribute is absent, UAs must act
as if the action attribute was the empty string, which is a relative
URI reference, and would thus point to the current document (or the
specified base URI, if any).

But: 
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%3Cbase%20href%3D%22http%3A//google.com%22%3E%3Cform%3E%3Cinput%20type%3Dsubmit%3E

In IE7, FF2, FF3, Opera 9.2, it ignores the base URI and always
submits to the current page. In Safari 3, it does take account of the
base URI. In all, form action= does the same as form. In all,
form action=. does take account of the base URI. Perhaps it would
be sensible to follow the majority.


Wouldn't that be a violation of RFC3986?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.4

Are there pages in the wild relying on that behavior (i.e. has Apple
received a bug report for pages breaking in Safari? [1])

[1] Hmm, seems like there is such a bug report, with people
misunderstanding RFC3986 §4.4 and relying on such broken behaviors:
http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7763
(for the first example, it's at
http://www.polytechnique.fr/eleves/login.php, there's a base
href=http://www.polytechnique.fr/eleves/; and form action=
expected to be POSTed to login.php)

--
Thomas Broyer


Re: [whatwg] WF2 - form action=

2007-07-01 Thread Thomas Broyer

2007/7/1, Thomas Broyer:


[1] Hmm, seems like there is such a bug report, with people
misunderstanding RFC3986 §4.4 and relying on such broken behaviors:
http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7763
(for the first example, it's at
http://www.polytechnique.fr/eleves/login.php, there's a base
href=http://www.polytechnique.fr/eleves/; and form action=
expected to be POSTed to login.php)


Oh, I should have said that the bug has been reported more than a year
ago and is still not resolved, so there might not be that many pages
out there relying on this behavior (note that those pages are also
obviously abusing the base URI by assigning it an unrelated URI for
the purpose of creating an artificial shorthand notation for external
references [1], otherwise they wouldn't be bugged by Safari's
RFC3986-compliant behavior)

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Thomas Broyer


[whatwg] WF2 - form action=

2007-06-30 Thread Philip Taylor

WF2 says:

 When the [form element's action] attribute is absent, UAs must act
as if the action attribute was the empty string, which is a relative
URI reference, and would thus point to the current document (or the
specified base URI, if any).

But: 
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%3Cbase%20href%3D%22http%3A//google.com%22%3E%3Cform%3E%3Cinput%20type%3Dsubmit%3E

In IE7, FF2, FF3, Opera 9.2, it ignores the base URI and always
submits to the current page. In Safari 3, it does take account of the
base URI. In all, form action= does the same as form. In all,
form action=. does take account of the base URI. Perhaps it would
be sensible to follow the majority.

--
Philip Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]