15684 2012-01-24 01:09:01 +0000 [URL] Replacing backslash with forward slash in URIs doesn't seem to be necessitated by web compat 2014-04-11 19:37:28 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG URL unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#resolving-urls P3 normal Unsorted 12543 1 mike annevk annevk brunoaiss bzbarsky contributor erik.arvidsson hsteen ian julian.reschke mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-webapps VYV03354 w3c sideshowbarker+urlspec oldest_to_newest 63029 0 mike 2012-01-24 01:09:01 +0000 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #12543 +++ Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/urls.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#resolving-urls Comment: Replacing backslash with forward slash in URIs doesn't seem to be necessitated by web compat Posted from: 71.184.125.56 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0a1) Gecko/20110422 Firefox/6.0a1 63031 1 w3c 2012-01-24 01:19:16 +0000 How do we know that? 63032 2 mike 2012-01-24 01:25:17 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > How do we know that? I think Boris already responded to that in bug 12543. This is just a clone of that bug. I created this bug due to the HTML WG decision policy prohibiting the component of Last Call bugs from being changed. To be clear though, going forward, I suggest that the discussion should take place here, and have suggested to HIxie that he move bug 12543 to resolved. 63033 3 w3c 2012-01-24 01:29:16 +0000 Ah, thanks. 63147 4 julian.reschke 2012-01-26 08:16:03 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > To be clear though, going forward, I suggest that the discussion should take > place here, and have suggested to HIxie that he move bug 12543 to resolved. IMHO the wrong thing to do until the HTML spec actually references that document. 67343 5 bzbarsky 2012-05-04 23:57:35 +0000 One note: Chrome's behavior here causes problems for people trying to use backslash in URIs in at least some use cases. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10438008/different-behaviours-of-treating-backslash-in-the-url-by-firefox-and-chrome/10444621 for example. 74776 6 annevk 2012-09-28 10:42:20 +0000 As far as I can tell Gecko is the only browser that does not do this. I'd rather convince Gecko to change than everyone else. http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ handles / and \ identically in URLs with hierarchical schemes. 103777 7 hsteen 2014-04-11 19:17:56 +0000 Just for the record: "Gecko doesn't do it" wasn't strictly true, after all. It did - but only on Windows for some odd reason.. http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/docshell/base/nsDefaultURIFixup.cpp#166 Per https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=652186 we've now officially surrendered anyway. 103779 8 bzbarsky 2014-04-11 19:37:28 +0000 > It did - but only on Windows for some odd reason.. And only in the case when the backslashes came right after the ':' following the scheme, to be clear. And only for navigations, not all loads. And it's Windows-only because it commonly came up only via users typing stuff in the URL bar on Windows. > we've now officially surrendered anyway. At least I have. It's just not worth it to me to spend any more time on this.