On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]> wrote: > > Given how unlikely it is that someone will have registered a scheme > handler > > for the one-character drive letters, the Chrome/IE behavior seems more > > forgiving and more likely what the author wants, to me. > > But it also forks the semantics of generic URLs, or at least when the > base URL happens to be a file URL. Those kind of exceptions are not > exactly ideal. In particular treating an absolute URL as a relative > URL under certain circumstances seems bad. I don't see this as a security risk, and if the behavior is desirable, it seems fairly well-scoped in terms of specifying it. PK
