3 ms·
http://example.com/page http://example.com/page and http://example.com/page/ http://example.com/page/ could be totally different pages... So .replace()'ing coul
by slewis 14y ago
http://example.com/page http://example.com/page and http://example.com/page/ http://example.com/page/ could be totally different pages... So .replace()'ing could silently cause unexpected breakage.
- nailer 14y agoThey shouldn't be. Slash normalization is pretty normal and it's ones of the first things frameworks add.
- jarin 14y agoHowever, they're probably building to the URL spec which is what they should be doing.
- eob 14y agoIt doesn't matter if some people do slash normalizing. It's not how the web works at the standards-level.
- artursapek 14y agoWell, maybe everyone's unawareness of this means the standard is wrong.
- silentOpen 14y agoNo.
- itsnotlupus 14y agoA de facto standard? We'll have to ask the committee about that.
- petsos 14y agoThey are not allowing the trailing / anyway, so what's the difference?
- nolok 14y agoIf you type google.com you don't expect FB to replace it to bing.com without telling you. /path and /path/ are two totally different things in the standards, just like /path and /path2. Sure in most cases with and without trailing slash gives the same page; but it's not something you can assume. Same reason why "we don't allow https links" doesn't mean you can just drop the s.