![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Perhaps someone could add a brief introduction and a link to the "data: URL" page on the main "URL" page?
I think this article should be renamed to data: URI, and replace all references to URL with URI, retaining the historical aspect of them being called URLs. data: URL should be redirected there. Hrvoje Šimić 12:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
According to RFC 2397, it is considered a URL, despite the fact that data: is not a locator. For that matter, it isn't really an identifier either; it's more like a container. - Brianiac 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a note on data uri's in CSS. Non-alphabetic characters must be escaped by backslashes. Refer to this bugzilla entry: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=319779
Am I correct in thinking that data: does not support specifying http headers such as content-disposition, so suggested names for saving cannot be given, nor transparent gzip compression specified. If that's correct, it should be listed in the disadvantages. Also the lack of content negotiation.
For some reason, this article has copyvio flags. There is no copyright violation, as RFC 2397's copryight statement allows (if not encourages) copying. As the pertient section of the "Full Copyright Statement" states:
-- NeoAmsterdam 04:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've highlighted what seems to me to be the problematic part.
-- Uldoon 14:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Every RFC seems to have the copyright part inserted, so if Data: URI's would be infringing, somebody should check out the pages for E-Mails, HTTP, IRC, Jabber, etc. because they are all RFC's
-- The Decryptor 16:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.
Just in response to "if Data: URI's would be infringing, somebody should check out the pages for E-Mails, HTTP, IRC, Jabber, etc. because they are all RFC's" - none of our articles should be verbatim copies of RFCs, since RFC content is not, per se, encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, many articles will discuss and even quote from copyrighted standards, but neither of those would constitute copyright infringement, so there's very unlikely to be a problem. -
IMSoP
13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would like to add data: URI examples but how do I link to them? I tried [data:,] and <a href="data:,"> formats but neither are turned into links... How do I do this? ( Boborok 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC))
According to this: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/19/internet-explorer-8-and-acid2-a-milestone.aspx#6810063 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.120.25 ( talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The page currently reads "[the data URI scheme] is supported (restricted to embedding images in css) by Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1" but a Microsoft white paper ( [2]) indicates that data URIs may be used in object, img, link, and css elements in html. MS documentation isn't always right and I don't have IE8b1 installed to verify it so I won't edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.20.172.96 ( talk) 01:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed:
about:<b>bold</b>
in these versions was broadly equivalent to data:text/html,<b>bold</b>
in browsers that support data: URIs
citation neededbecause

, not displaying bold text or a web page. About:
would not seem to be very equivalent.data:
as the latest versions of IE do not support it, and as it would not allow the inclusion of images (AFAIK) as notod above.If you disagree, please discuss it. -- Temporitron ( talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to quibble with this. Disk use is not necessarily increased... if the script is generating a CSS page, the server only has to access the image files exactly as many times as it would have if they were referenced in the standard way: either the server loads the file to create the base64 encoding, or the client makes the server serve the file when the client is rendering the page. I removed the bold section and feel it should stay gone. -- Temporitron ( talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
this entry quality is horrible. Need lots of enhancements. --Tei
The commentary about Safari needs some clarity. I've read the paragraph several times and can't tell if it means yes, Safari does render data: URIs, or no it doesn't. (In fact, Safari 3 does.) Using "although" starts an inversion, a negating clause. Can that paragraph be rewritten so any average reader would know what the final answer is? I can't because I'm not sure what point it was making exactly. John Sinclair ( talk) 08:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"Cookies are not supported." - Eh? Isn't this rather like saying that <h1>
tags don't support cookies? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.2.73.194 (
talk)
12:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Today the last paragraph of the summary says "and data URIs have now been implemented in most browsers" though I don't really understand when that was written, when is "now". Should say something like "and data URIs have been implemented in most browsers by 2009" or whenever that happened. -- 93.172.144.206 ( talk) 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure data: worked in some earlier versions of IE - around 2003 ? Or was it just in HTML emails viewed in Outlook (Express) ? Maybe it was undocumented ... -- 87.194.174.252 ( talk) 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody rewrite "features/UA detection/discrimination" without the slashes? I can't understand it. Unfree ( talk) 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Added "with base64", as the ability to add whitespace is not a general property of data URIs, but is a property of the base64 encoding. Nitro2k01 ( talk) 22:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no mention of this URI scheme with another use that has come into play: A VoIP "do not call" function. Example (fictitious):
2.1.2.1.5.5.5.0.0.8.1.e164.org. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "E2U+X-DNC" "!.*!data:,2047!" .
See http://www.e164.org/wiki/DoNotCall for further details regarding this usage. - 71.106.211.51 ( talk) 23:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Surely this only applies if the same data is naively inserted several times into the source. It could just as well be a single Javascript variable, referenced as many times as needed. Unless I'm missing something, this entry should be removed from the list. 195.212.29.89 ( talk) 11:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed an outdated assertion that most browsers limit the number of connections to a web server to 2. Although this is the recommended value by the HTTP RFC, most current browsers ignore this recommendation and use a higher figure. I've included a reference to back this claim up - although it is self-published (a blog) it is published by an acknowledged expert in the field (Steve Souders, who is currently employed as the chief performance engineer at google) who has previously been published on the subject area (High Performance Web Sites: Essential Knowledge for Front-End Engineers, O'Reilly 2007), so should meet all requirements of WP:V. 212.159.69.4 ( talk) 07:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The data segment is describe as being octets of letters and numbers only and required %nnn encoding otherwise. I suspect this constraint is with respect to the character set selection and seems to be irrelevant when the data is binary encoded via the base64 designation, as shown in the examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.115.138 ( talk) 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Scott, then please explain why the HTML example is in contradiction (presence of / and =) Geompse ( talk) 10:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is the title "data URI scheme"? Shouldn't it be "Data URI scheme"?
-- Mortense ( talk) 11:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Perhaps someone could add a brief introduction and a link to the "data: URL" page on the main "URL" page?
I think this article should be renamed to data: URI, and replace all references to URL with URI, retaining the historical aspect of them being called URLs. data: URL should be redirected there. Hrvoje Šimić 12:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
According to RFC 2397, it is considered a URL, despite the fact that data: is not a locator. For that matter, it isn't really an identifier either; it's more like a container. - Brianiac 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a note on data uri's in CSS. Non-alphabetic characters must be escaped by backslashes. Refer to this bugzilla entry: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=319779
Am I correct in thinking that data: does not support specifying http headers such as content-disposition, so suggested names for saving cannot be given, nor transparent gzip compression specified. If that's correct, it should be listed in the disadvantages. Also the lack of content negotiation.
For some reason, this article has copyvio flags. There is no copyright violation, as RFC 2397's copryight statement allows (if not encourages) copying. As the pertient section of the "Full Copyright Statement" states:
-- NeoAmsterdam 04:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've highlighted what seems to me to be the problematic part.
-- Uldoon 14:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Every RFC seems to have the copyright part inserted, so if Data: URI's would be infringing, somebody should check out the pages for E-Mails, HTTP, IRC, Jabber, etc. because they are all RFC's
-- The Decryptor 16:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.
Just in response to "if Data: URI's would be infringing, somebody should check out the pages for E-Mails, HTTP, IRC, Jabber, etc. because they are all RFC's" - none of our articles should be verbatim copies of RFCs, since RFC content is not, per se, encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, many articles will discuss and even quote from copyrighted standards, but neither of those would constitute copyright infringement, so there's very unlikely to be a problem. -
IMSoP
13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would like to add data: URI examples but how do I link to them? I tried [data:,] and <a href="data:,"> formats but neither are turned into links... How do I do this? ( Boborok 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC))
According to this: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/19/internet-explorer-8-and-acid2-a-milestone.aspx#6810063 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.120.25 ( talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The page currently reads "[the data URI scheme] is supported (restricted to embedding images in css) by Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1" but a Microsoft white paper ( [2]) indicates that data URIs may be used in object, img, link, and css elements in html. MS documentation isn't always right and I don't have IE8b1 installed to verify it so I won't edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.20.172.96 ( talk) 01:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed:
about:<b>bold</b>
in these versions was broadly equivalent to data:text/html,<b>bold</b>
in browsers that support data: URIs
citation neededbecause

, not displaying bold text or a web page. About:
would not seem to be very equivalent.data:
as the latest versions of IE do not support it, and as it would not allow the inclusion of images (AFAIK) as notod above.If you disagree, please discuss it. -- Temporitron ( talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to quibble with this. Disk use is not necessarily increased... if the script is generating a CSS page, the server only has to access the image files exactly as many times as it would have if they were referenced in the standard way: either the server loads the file to create the base64 encoding, or the client makes the server serve the file when the client is rendering the page. I removed the bold section and feel it should stay gone. -- Temporitron ( talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
this entry quality is horrible. Need lots of enhancements. --Tei
The commentary about Safari needs some clarity. I've read the paragraph several times and can't tell if it means yes, Safari does render data: URIs, or no it doesn't. (In fact, Safari 3 does.) Using "although" starts an inversion, a negating clause. Can that paragraph be rewritten so any average reader would know what the final answer is? I can't because I'm not sure what point it was making exactly. John Sinclair ( talk) 08:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"Cookies are not supported." - Eh? Isn't this rather like saying that <h1>
tags don't support cookies? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.2.73.194 (
talk)
12:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Today the last paragraph of the summary says "and data URIs have now been implemented in most browsers" though I don't really understand when that was written, when is "now". Should say something like "and data URIs have been implemented in most browsers by 2009" or whenever that happened. -- 93.172.144.206 ( talk) 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure data: worked in some earlier versions of IE - around 2003 ? Or was it just in HTML emails viewed in Outlook (Express) ? Maybe it was undocumented ... -- 87.194.174.252 ( talk) 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody rewrite "features/UA detection/discrimination" without the slashes? I can't understand it. Unfree ( talk) 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Added "with base64", as the ability to add whitespace is not a general property of data URIs, but is a property of the base64 encoding. Nitro2k01 ( talk) 22:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no mention of this URI scheme with another use that has come into play: A VoIP "do not call" function. Example (fictitious):
2.1.2.1.5.5.5.0.0.8.1.e164.org. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "E2U+X-DNC" "!.*!data:,2047!" .
See http://www.e164.org/wiki/DoNotCall for further details regarding this usage. - 71.106.211.51 ( talk) 23:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Surely this only applies if the same data is naively inserted several times into the source. It could just as well be a single Javascript variable, referenced as many times as needed. Unless I'm missing something, this entry should be removed from the list. 195.212.29.89 ( talk) 11:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed an outdated assertion that most browsers limit the number of connections to a web server to 2. Although this is the recommended value by the HTTP RFC, most current browsers ignore this recommendation and use a higher figure. I've included a reference to back this claim up - although it is self-published (a blog) it is published by an acknowledged expert in the field (Steve Souders, who is currently employed as the chief performance engineer at google) who has previously been published on the subject area (High Performance Web Sites: Essential Knowledge for Front-End Engineers, O'Reilly 2007), so should meet all requirements of WP:V. 212.159.69.4 ( talk) 07:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The data segment is describe as being octets of letters and numbers only and required %nnn encoding otherwise. I suspect this constraint is with respect to the character set selection and seems to be irrelevant when the data is binary encoded via the base64 designation, as shown in the examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.115.138 ( talk) 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Scott, then please explain why the HTML example is in contradiction (presence of / and =) Geompse ( talk) 10:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is the title "data URI scheme"? Shouldn't it be "Data URI scheme"?
-- Mortense ( talk) 11:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)