On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:38:33 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we come across something like: description type=html![CDATA
[base url=http://example.com/;a href=test.htmlTest Link/a]]
/description,
Yikes!
I assume the link should point to http://example.com/test.html,
On 1 Jan 2007, at 16:59, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
Like James Holderness wrote,
Eek! I should keep up with emails better!
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)
2007/1/1, Geoffrey Sneddon:
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
* 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
On 1/1/07, Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
On 1 Jan 2007, at 19:22, Bob Wyman wrote:
If you want a local base, then use xml:base. That's what it is for.
When the spec says you SHOULD treat html content as if it were in a
DIV, it adds a certain amount of unclarity as how such Atom feeds
should be parsed. I'm asking merely to see
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 21:22:33 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want a local base, then use xml:base. That's what it is for.
When the spec says you SHOULD treat html content as if it were in a
DIV, it adds a certain amount of unclarity as how such Atom feeds
should
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
When the spec says you SHOULD treat html content as if it were in a
DIV, it adds a certain amount of unclarity as how such Atom feeds
should be parsed. I'm asking merely to see if there's any consensus as to
how it should be done. I have no control over the vast
-1. If there's anything we can learn from the mess that is RSS, at a
certain point feed consumers should be allowed to say simply that a
buggy feed is a buggy feed and that it falls on the responsibility of
the feed publisher to get things right.
- James
James Holderness wrote:
[snip]
Do you
On Jan 1, 2007, at 22:46, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I suppose you could raise this on the WHATWG list. Asking what
happens if you set innerHTML of a div where the setted value has
both a base and an a for instance.
Interesting. I hadn't thought that Atom was supposed to use innerHTML
James M Snell wrote:
-1. If there's anything we can learn from the mess that is RSS, at a
certain point feed consumers should be allowed to say simply that a
buggy feed is a buggy feed and that it falls on the responsibility of
the feed publisher to get things right.
Well that's not really
11 matches
Mail list logo
