On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Rafael Weinstein wrote: > >> I'm curious: Is it useful to have fragment URL resolve against > >> anything other than the "display" url? I.e. when is the current > >> behavior wrt fragments appropriate. > > > > It's a good question. I thought the old IETF specs for URLs said you > > had to do otherwise, but nobody seems to have implemented that. > > Browsers have been inconsistent on this actually, not sure if they still > are. I think if we want to do this differently, then after trimming > whitespace to obtain the URL, the <a> element should have a special case > for # and pick a different base URL at that point. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2396#section-4.2 has the vague wording > that does not take the base URL into account. In > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.4 it does. The problem > with the former is that it's not clear when it applies, but we could > make that clear by only doing it in certain contexts, as I suggested > above.
Well presumably we wouldn't want to only do it for <a>, since then links would work but SVG wouldn't (the exact opposite of the situation in Chrome now, for what it's worth). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
