On May 4, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Xianzhu Wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> KURL's relative URL behavior is different between Chromium and non-Chromium
> ports, because Chromium ports use KURLGoogle.cpp instead of KURL.cpp.
>
> In KURL(base, relative), when base is a not hierarchical, WebKit's
> KURL::string() returns relative, while Chromium's returns an empty string.
> The behavior of Chromium causes https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55643
> (Chromium unnecessarily creates SVGImage when an SVG document contains
> images).
>
> I'm wondering which behavior is correct. Assuming WebKit's KURL behavior is
> correct, my first patch is to change KURLGoogle.cpp to match KURL.cpp, which
> affects the result of fast/url/relative.html.
> platform/chromium/fast/url/relative-expected.txt contains all PASSs, while
> fast/url/relative-expected.txt contains 8 expected FAILs, 2 of which relate
> to my question:
I don't know if KURL's behavior is correct, but I believe Chromium's behavior
of resolving to an empty string URL in this case is not matched by any other
browser. So I am pretty sure KURLGoogle is incorrect.
>
> FAIL canonicalize('baz.html') should be . Was baz.html.
> FAIL canonicalize(':foo') should be . Was :foo.
>
> My questions are:
> 1. Are all the PASS expectations of fast/url/relative.html correct? If yes,
> we should file a bug to track the failures of KURL.
> 2. With my patch, Chromium will produce the above two FAILs for
> fast/url/relative.html. Is this acceptable to be rebaselined?
Adam made the test expectations all have PASS matching google-url behavior,
without analysis of what is actually correct. I think it may be misleading for
the tests to say PASS/FAIL at all at this point, but I would say the test
should be rebaselined.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
