10894 2010-09-30 19:38:32 +0000 Reflecting an IDL attribute with a URL should try to canonicalize whatever value is set 2012-12-21 14:36:46 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG URL unspecified All All RESOLVED FIXED http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/common-dom-interfaces.html#reflecting-content-attributes-in-idl-attributes P3 normal Unsorted 1 adrianba annevk annevk erik.arvidsson ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-webapps sideshowbarker+urlspec oldest_to_newest 40277 0 918 adrianba 2010-09-30 19:38:32 +0000 Created attachment 918 Test case The spec says: "If a reflecting IDL attribute is a DOMString attribute whose content attribute is defined to contain a URL, then on getting, the IDL attribute must resolve the value of the content attribute relative to the element and return the resulting absolute URL if that was successful, or the empty string otherwise" None of the major browsers return the empty string. Proposed language: "If a reflecting IDL attribute is a DOMString attribute whose content attribute is defined to contain a URL, then on getting, the IDL attribute must resolve the value of the content attribute relative to the element and return the resulting absolute URL" In other words, store whatever value is supplied, and then try to canonicalize the URL relative to that. 40342 1 annevk 2010-10-01 00:08:46 +0000 This is about what to do with invalid input. E.g. <a href="http://a b/">. That would fail to resolve. So unless the URL resolving algorithm always resolves, we need to handle the case where it fails, somehow. 40989 2 ian 2010-10-12 07:29:32 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: What Anne said. So long as the resolving algorithm can fail, then we need to define what happens when it fails. Adam is currently working on rewriting that algorithm. If he defines it in a way that it never fails, then I can strip this part of the spec. In the meantime... I'll mark this REMIND so I can check this once Adam's work is done. 74779 3 annevk 2012-09-28 10:47:41 +0000 http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ now defines this. HTML just needs to be updated to refer to it. 918 2010-09-30 19:38:32 +0000 2010-09-30 19:38:32 +0000 Test case invalid-src.html text/html 618 adrianba PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUw+DQo8aHRtbD4NCgk8aGVhZD4NCgkJPHRpdGxlPkludmFsaWQgVVJMIHRl c3QgZm9yIG1lZGlhIGVsZW1lbnRzPC90aXRsZT4NCgk8L2hlYWQ+DQoJPGJvZHk+DQoJCTxwPlRl c3QgcGFzc2VzIGlmIHRoZSB0ZXh0ICJQQVNTIiBhcHBlYXJzIGJlbG93LjwvcD4NCgkJPGltZyBp ZD0iaW1hZ2UiPg0KICAgICAgICA8YnI+DQoJCTxzY3JpcHQgdHlwZT0idGV4dC9qYXZhc2NyaXB0 Ij4NCgkJCQ0KCQkJdGVzdEVsZW0gPSBkb2N1bWVudC5nZXRFbGVtZW50QnlJZCgiaW1hZ2UiKTsN CgkJCXRyeQ0KCQkJew0KCQkJCXRlc3RFbGVtLnNyYyA9ICI6Ojo6OjovcGF0aCI7DQoJCQkJaWYg KHRlc3RFbGVtLnNyYyA9PSAiIikNCgkJCQl7DQoJCQkJCWRvY3VtZW50LndyaXRlKCJQQVNTIikN CgkJCQl9DQoJCQkJZWxzZQ0KCQkJCXsNCgkJCQkJZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUoIkZBSUw6IHNyYyBz ZXQgdG8gaW52YWxpZCBVUkwgWyIgKyB0ZXN0RWxlbS5zcmMgKyAiXSIpOw0KCQkJCX0NCgkJCX0N CgkJCWNhdGNoIChleCkNCgkJCXsNCgkJCQlkb2N1bWVudC53cml0ZSgiRkFJTDogRXhjZXB0aW9u IHRocm93biIpOw0KCQkJfQ0KCQk8L3NjcmlwdD4NCgk8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+