[whatwg] Inconsistent behavior for empty-string URLs
nzakas at yahoo-inc.com
Wed Dec 16 10:21:25 PST 2009
Looks like a good list to me.
Commander Lock: "Damnit Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"
Morpheus: "My beliefs do not require them to."
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas at sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:21 AM
To: Simon Pieters
Cc: Nicholas Zakas; Maciej Stachowiak; whatwg at lists.whatwg.org; Aryeh Gregor
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Inconsistent behavior for empty-string URLs
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp at opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:21:33 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Nicholas Zakas <nzakas at yahoo-inc.com>
>>> Here's what I would propose:
>>> 1. Empty string attributes for HTML elements specifying resources to
>>> automatically download are considered invalid and don't cause a request
>>> to be sent. Examples: <img>, <link>, <script>, <iframe>, etc. This would
>>> not apply to <a href=""> because it is a user-initiated request.
>>> 2. This also applies to manipulation of HTML elements through the DOM,
>>> so (new Image()).src="" would not result in a request being sent.
>>> elements, such as Web Workers, XMLHttpRequest, etc.
>> I'd prefer to explicitly enumerate the elements we're talking about,
>> rather than giving rules which risk being interpreted differently by
>> different people.
>> For example not all <link>s are automatically downloaded, such as
>> <link rel=prev>. However I suspect that we'll want all <link>s to
>> behave the same.
>> So the specific list would then be:
> I think only icon, prefetch and stylesheet links.
> The following element defines two links, one of which would be ignored:
> <link rel="icon index" href>
> Including poster?
Yes. Good catch.
>> <input type=image>
> <command icon>?
> <html manifest>?
> <applet code>? (Maybe not, since it's more of a parameter to the Java
> <frame src>?
I don't really feel strongly about <applet> given that it's
deprecated. But sounds good.
More information about the whatwg