Looking at the suggestion, I'm a little confused about why you'd want to use that little of a relative URI: what's the advantage?
Relative URIs which keep the same host name and path prefix ("../styles/foo.css" and "../images/bar.jpeg" etc) are obviously practically useful because they enable you to transplant an entire web site into a different directory or a different host, and have all the interlinks Just Work with no annoying editing required. Fair enough. But that kind tend not to be useful on LJ because there aren't many URLs that you can reliably access relative to a post or comment, since that post/comment can show up in lots of different contexts such as other people's friends pages.
I don't understand the practical use of a relative URI which keeps only the protocol and changes everything else. Even if the entire LJ site were moved over to a different protocol - perhaps HTTPS - there still wouldn't be much use for such relative URIs, since no other hostname would have moved its content over simultaneously, surely?
Is this a question of pedantic standards compliance, or is there an actual use for it that I've missed out? You mention in the suggestions community that you might want to make a mirror of your LJ available via gopher, but I have a hard time believing that you have a genuine desire to do this :-)
There's a small lazyness factor too - it's less typing to use // rather than http:// . Also, LJ is IMAO clearly doing something that's wrong and breaks correct posts when doing TRT(TM) is just as easy, and doesn't do this.
If it's mostly a laziness thing, I'm inclined to suggest that it might be worth writing the patch yourself, since the LJ source code is available via public CVS. You might get the LJ maintainers to do it just on the standards compliance angle, but if they don't care much either way then minimising their effort might improve your chances...
Actually, come to think of it, I can think of an almost-sensible use for this which I'd missed. LJ doesn't use only one hostname - some people's journals are at username.livejournal.com. So if (and this "if" is where the "almost" comes in) the whole of LJ were to migrate to HTTPS or to whatever the next fashionable protocol is, then a relative URI of the form you describe would be the most robust way to link to other people's posts :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Relative URIs which keep the same host name and path prefix ("../styles/foo.css" and "../images/bar.jpeg" etc) are obviously practically useful because they enable you to transplant an entire web site into a different directory or a different host, and have all the interlinks Just Work with no annoying editing required. Fair enough. But that kind tend not to be useful on LJ because there aren't many URLs that you can reliably access relative to a post or comment, since that post/comment can show up in lots of different contexts such as other people's friends pages.
I don't understand the practical use of a relative URI which keeps only the protocol and changes everything else. Even if the entire LJ site were moved over to a different protocol - perhaps HTTPS - there still wouldn't be much use for such relative URIs, since no other hostname would have moved its content over simultaneously, surely?
Is this a question of pedantic standards compliance, or is there an actual use for it that I've missed out? You mention in the suggestions community that you might want to make a mirror of your LJ available via gopher, but I have a hard time believing that you have a genuine desire to do this :-)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
[err, you might have a point, but I can't be arsed with getting my head round the LJ code just for this bug]
no subject
username.livejournal.com. So if (and this "if" is where the "almost" comes in) the whole of LJ were to migrate to HTTPS or to whatever the next fashionable protocol is, then a relative URI of the form you describe would be the most robust way to link to other people's posts :-)