[whatwg] <base> versus xml:base

L. David Baron dbaron at dbaron.org
Tue Mar 13 16:18:48 PDT 2007

On Friday 2007-03-02 11:30 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I think <base> should also be allowed in XML documents. It simplifies the  
> language, it already needs to be supported and <base> is able to set  
> Document.baseURI where xml:base can at most set  
> Document.documentElement.baseURI. (Document.baseURI influences how  
> XMLHttpRequest works for instance.)

It seems at least easily implementable (although I'm not sure
whether it's a good idea) to allow both <base> and xml:base as long
as it's clearly documented (which it is) that relative URIs on the
<base> element are resolved relative to the resource location rather
than to the xml:base for the <base> element.  (HTML 4.01 solves this
problem by requiring that the href be absolute [1].)

(But this made me notice a bunch of other related issues, which I'll
be sending shortly as separate messages on new threads.)


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/links.html#adef-href-BASE

L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
           Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070313/210972ed/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the whatwg mailing list