Replies: 1 comment
-
I was originally thinking HTTP would be a good place for this but:
This is a good point, and there's plenty of other ways to use URIs, and it would be good for |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
We don't have a central place for documenting how browsers handle URLs:
data:
lives in HTTP/Basics_of_HTTP/Data_URLsblob:
is "documented" in API/URL/createObjectURL_static (one page links there; other pages link to API/Blob which makes even less sense)javascript:
is entirely undocumented: Content suggestion: javascript pseudo-protocol identifier content#7143, despite its many interesting behaviorssms:
,mailto:
, et al. only get a passing reference on the<a>
pageThe fragment affects navigation behavior, while the different schemes affect many things, including link targets,
fetch
,import
etc. TheURL
API exposes the syntax of URLs, such as resolving relative references (mdn/content#33455), but not the semantics like what should happen when fetching ajavascript:
URI. Moreover, I think it's just "wrong" to put things like resource URI concepts under the HTTP docs, because HTTP is just a protocol, and is not the whole network. Therefore it doesn't seem right to put docs about browsers' handling of URLs anywhere. Maybe we should consider a new "URL" area under Web/?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions