* Geoffrey Sneddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-01 19:00]:
> On 1 Jan 2007, at 16:59, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> >the <base> element has no place in an HTML fragment, so its
> >meaning is (although most browsers wrongfully supports its
> >presence anywhere in an HTML document) unspecified.
>
> Web Applications 1.0 (keeping with the real world) defines that it
> should be moved to HEAD within the DOM tree.
Thereby, of course, breaking the links in any other entries
rendered in the same page by a web-based aggregator, f.ex.
> Why, may I ask, MUST (under the RFC 2119 definition) HTML content be
> a fragment ("HTML markup within SHOULD be such that it could validly
> appear directly within an HTML <DIV> element, after unescaping." -
> note the word SHOULD, not MUST, implying that you can have a full
> HTML document within)?
Because many aggregators (most, very likely) do not render items
in isolation, but rather in some sort of collection, either
across feeds as a “river of news” or even just several within a
single feed. (Weblog engines do that when showing the front page
of the weblog or archive for particular intervals.) They will
usually strip any header-level information from your entry, so
putting such elements in the content will usually fail to achieve
what you wanted – hence the SHOULD.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
