View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0003262 | HTML & PERL | Feature Request - Interface | public | 2018-09-17 00:38 | 2018-09-18 22:18 |
| Reporter | Belove | Assigned To | DerIdiot | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Summary | 0003262: Editor: Allow AniDB URLs in BBCode without protocol (such as "//anidb.net/a1") so as not to redirect users to https or http site | ||||
| Description | Editor: Allow AniDB URLs in BBCode without a protocol (such as "//anidb.net/a1") so links won't redirect other users from to the https or http site from the way they are already connecting. Could also permit URLs without the domain name, so long as they begin at the site root (such as "/a1"). | ||||
| Tags | bbcode, editor, forum, message, URI | ||||
|
|
Come to think of it, in addition to allowing those things, it's probably desirable to rewrite AniDB URLs to never redirect users between https/http, regardless of how they were entered. |
|
|
whats the point in allowing invalid urls? aside http and https is already converted on demand depending on the users usage. that has been in for 2 years. |
|
|
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.2 defines URLs without the the scheme/protocol, and they do really work in practice (though some previous users as nd proponents of them now argue to discontinue their use and just stop using http in favor of https everywhere). Although presently valid in context, I can understand not accepting URLs like "/a1". That's great that URLs in messages are converted on the fly, but users concerned for other users' experiences in using the links aren't likely to know that their URLs will be rewritten. Accepting a URL like "//anidb.net/a1", and if you prefer, adding the URL scheme of your choice after user entry, would be friendly to that concern. I do think the issue is very minor, and the fact that you do rewrite URLs later obviates any need outside of avoiding user concern, but I'm not sure what you mean by calling the URLs mentioned invalid. Feel free to leave things as they are; I just wanted to add this note to explain why I think the suggested URLs are valid and why accepting them still would provide some value. I can see potentially there may be Jabber clients out there (for the case of PMs) that don't assume any http/s scheme. They may be particularly undesirable for API output, as again those consumers are not necessarily web browsers. With the info you gave about URL rewriting, my concern is only for URL input. And less concern than before ;). |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-09-17 00:38 | Belove | New Issue | |
| 2018-09-17 00:39 | Belove | Tag Attached: bbcode | |
| 2018-09-17 00:39 | Belove | Tag Attached: editor | |
| 2018-09-17 00:39 | Belove | Tag Attached: forum | |
| 2018-09-17 00:39 | Belove | Tag Attached: message | |
| 2018-09-17 00:43 | Belove | Note Added: 0004285 | |
| 2018-09-17 01:06 | Belove | Tag Attached: URI | |
| 2018-09-17 14:02 | DerIdiot | Assigned To | => DerIdiot |
| 2018-09-17 14:02 | DerIdiot | Status | new => closed |
| 2018-09-17 14:02 | DerIdiot | Resolution | open => no change required |
| 2018-09-17 14:02 | DerIdiot | Note Added: 0004287 | |
| 2018-09-18 05:59 | Belove | Status | closed => feedback |
| 2018-09-18 05:59 | Belove | Resolution | no change required => reopened |
| 2018-09-18 05:59 | Belove | Note Added: 0004289 | |
| 2018-09-18 22:18 | DerIdiot | Status | feedback => closed |
| 2018-09-18 22:18 | DerIdiot | Resolution | reopened => no change required |
