[whatwg] <base> elements, again
ian at hixie.ch
Sat May 7 21:11:34 PDT 2011
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:
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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg