[whatwg] <base> versus xml:base
webmaster at keryx.se
Mon Mar 5 13:07:03 PST 2007
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> XHTML 1.0/1.1 doesn't allow xml:base, though, so <base> is the only >
> way to set a base URL within the document.
In what way would the XHTML 1.0/1.1 spec **disallow** the use of this
element from the xml namespace? It's not *part of* the spec, but that's
a different matter, right?
I've been told is that xml:base should work just fine in Firefox, Opera
and other XHTML-capable browsers, when content is served as
OTOH, for this message I decided to do a little test. The following will
be served as true XHTML by my server:
<xml:base href="http://dev.keryx.pad/xhtml/css/" />
<!-- link to my test server -->
<link href="style.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<div id="msg">Pink background if <xml:base>
is not supported, otherwise light green</div>
In the external CSS I have:
background: lightgreen !important;
content: " - <xml:base> works! External CSS recognized.";
When I try this in Firefox 2.0 it does not work, nor will it in Opera 9.10.
It may be that I've implemented this in the wrong way - corrections are
welcome - but it seems to me that even though <xml:base> is legal today,
it is **not** supported by UAs. Which makes Anne's proposal, that <base>
should be allowed in both serializations, even more important.
More information about the whatwg