On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Scott Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On [Sep 2], at [ Sep 2] 6:45 , Martin McEvoy wrote: > >> I think relative urls on the whole are "bad form" because many authors >> forget to set the base url for their relative paths... > > > There's nothing wrong with that. See: > > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1808.html > >> 3.3. Base URL from the Retrieval URL >> >> If no base URL is embedded and the document is not encapsulated within >> some other entity (e.g., the top level of a composite entity), then, if a >> URL was used to retrieve the base document, that URL shall be considered the >> base URL.
I was going to respond to this last night with an RFC line as well but figured that it wasn't a direct response to Martin's "bad form" statement. If I understand Martin's statement correctly (Martin, correct me if I'm wrong), he is talking about the general use of relative URLs in absence of the base element e.g., relative URLs from an external resource in an iframe can potentially resolve to unintended URIs if the base element is missing. Surely, a relative URL is resolved to full URI and in and of itself this is not "bad form". Sarven Capadisli http://www.csarven.ca _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
