[whatwg] <base> elements, again

[Ian Hickson]

This thread discussed an abundance of cases where legacy behaviour for 
handling <base> causes compatibility issues, and how a variety of 
different browsers handle each case differently due to an array of bugs, 
quirks, and more recently, attempts to follow the spec.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627361

The conclusion seems to have been to attempt to keep the spec as it 
stands, and try to get the remaining problems addressed via evangelism.

I approve of such an approach because it means I don't have to do 
anything. Also, and more importantly, the spec as it stands now is 
somewhat sane and pretty much any behaviour to address the remaining 
compatibility issues moves us away from sanity.

Have there been more compatibility problems reported with <base> in the 
past few months that would change this conclusion?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'