2011/5/5 Brett Wilson <bre...@chromium.org> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Xianzhu Wang wrote: > > > > Hi, > > KURL's relative URL behavior is different between Chromium and > non-Chromium > > ports, because Chromium ports use KURLGoogle.cpp instead of KURL.cpp. > > In KURL(base, relative), when base is a not hierarchical, WebKit's > > KURL::string() returns relative, while Chromium's returns an empty > string. > > The behavior of Chromium > > causes https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55643 (Chromium > unnecessarily > > creates SVGImage when an SVG document contains images). > > I'm wondering which behavior is correct. Assuming WebKit's KURL behavior > is > > correct, my first patch is to change KURLGoogle.cpp to match KURL.cpp, > which > > affects the result > > > of fast/url/relative.html. platform/chromium/fast/url/relative-expected.txt > > contains all PASSs, while fast/url/relative-expected.txt contains 8 > expected > > FAILs, 2 of which relate to my question: > > > > I don't know if KURL's behavior is correct, but I believe Chromium's > > behavior of resolving to an empty string URL in this case is not matched > by > > any other browser. So I am pretty sure KURLGoogle is incorrect. > > I agree that the Google behavior should be changed when resolving > against a non-hierarchical base, although I think there are some cases > where I think KURL is also incorrect here (I don't remember > specifics). Adam is correct that there's a fair amount of ambiguity, > so it's difficult to declare either one correct for some cases. > > > FAIL canonicalize('baz.html') should be . Was baz.html. > > FAIL canonicalize(':foo') should be . Was :foo. > > My questions are: > > 1. Are all the PASS expectations of fast/url/relative.html correct? If > yes, > > we should file a bug to track the failures of KURL. > > 2. With my patch, Chromium will produce the above two FAILs for > > fast/url/relative.html. Is this acceptable to be rebaselined? > > > > Adam made the test expectations all have PASS matching google-url > behavior, > > without analysis of what is actually correct. I think it may be > misleading > > for the tests to say PASS/FAIL at all at this point, but I would say the > > test should be rebaselined. > > Note that the fix would be in the google-url project rather than in > the KURLGoogle.cpp. The change will likely be several weeks of work. > This hasn't been fixed yet because we've not seen it affect real > sites. > > The bug 55643 is an example of the effect. Though it doesn't have visual effect, it'll degrade performance when an SVG document containing images is loaded.
Brett >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
