In mozilla we currently don't allow relative URIs in the href at all. If
the uri is relative it is ignored. This is per HTML4, and I think it
would be ok for HTML5 to say the same.
Alternatively it could say that it should be relative to the URI used to
retrieve the base element. In most
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:15:12 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They don't conflict. They are both applied. base is the document's
base URI, and xml:base is the base URI of the element it is applied on.
What about:
base href=http://www.example.org/; xml:base=/bar /
I
2007/3/14, Anne van Kesteren:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:15:12 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They don't conflict. They are both applied. base is the document's
base URI, and xml:base is the base URI of the element it is applied on.
What about:
base
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:17:48 +0100, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
They don't conflict. They are both applied. base is the document's
base URI, and xml:base is the base URI of the element it is applied on.
What about:
base href=http://www.example.org/; xml:base=/bar /
I
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:17:48 +0100, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
base href=http://www.example.org/; xml:base=/bar /
I suppose xml:base= should affect href=.
The XML Base[1] specification says:
The base URI for a URI reference appearing in any other attribute value,
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:40:04 +0100, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How about this variation:
head xml:base=bar/
base href=foo/ /
/head
Is the [EMAIL PROTECTED] resolved to absolute using [EMAIL PROTECTED]:base or
not?
I'd say it is. At least according to XML Base. The HTML
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:40:04 +0100, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How about this variation:
head xml:base=bar/
base href=foo/ /
/head
Is the [EMAIL PROTECTED] resolved to absolute using [EMAIL PROTECTED]:base or
not?
I'd say it is. At least according to XML Base. The HTML
* Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
Let's say the document from my example was located on
'http://users.example.org/bob/'. According to the XML Base specification,
the initial base URI of the document (in this example) is «the URI used to
retrieve the entity». Since 'xml:base' affects base, and not the
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
If it is, then when looking at links inside head, relative URIs are
resolved using a base of bar/foo/bar/ (taking [EMAIL PROTECTED]:base into
account twice: once to resolve [EMAIL PROTECTED], which sets the document's
base URI, and then relative to that base URI to
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:38:59 +0100, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
They don't conflict. They are both applied. base is the document's
base URI, and xml:base is the base URI of the element it is applied on.
What about:
base href=http://www.example.org/; xml:base=/bar /
?
--
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:15:12 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:38:59 +0100, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
They don't conflict. They are both applied. base is the document's
base URI, and xml:base is the base URI of the element it is applied
What about:
base href=http://www.example.org/; xml:base=/bar /
?
Then the document's base URI is http://www.example.org/ and the base
element's base URI is http://www.example.org/bar.
I'm not entirely sure this is legal but what about (say for a document on
http://localhost/):
Simon Pieters wrote:
A conforming XHTML 1.0 document must conform to the DTD, which
effectively disallows xml:base and a whole bunch of other things
(including, say, namespace prefixes).
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#strict
I am moving this discussion to the help list, as it is more
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
xml:lang and xml:base are the actual attribute names – the XML namespace
exists so they work within namespace aware parsers (as XML-Names is a
separate spec that extends XML) – therefore, it must be explicitly
allowed within the DTD (like xml:lang is).
When I read
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:07:03 +0100, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be that I've implemented this in the wrong way - corrections
are welcome - but it seems to me that even though xml:base is legal
today, it is **not** supported by UAs. Which makes Anne's
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:07:03 +0100, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be that I've implemented this in the wrong way - corrections are
welcome - but it seems to me that even though xml:base is legal today,
it is **not** supported by UAs. Which makes Anne's proposal, that base
should
On 5 Mar 2007, at 21:07, Keryx Web wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
XHTML 1.0/1.1 doesn't allow xml:base, though, so base is the
only way to set a base URL within the document.
In what way would the XHTML 1.0/1.1 spec **disallow** the use of
this element from the xml namespace? It's not
I think base should also be allowed in XML documents. It simplifies the
language, it already needs to be supported and base is able to set
Document.baseURI where xml:base can at most set
Document.documentElement.baseURI. (Document.baseURI influences how
XMLHttpRequest works for instance.)
Anne van Kesteren skrev:
I think base should also be allowed in XML documents. It simplifies
the language, it already needs to be supported and base is able to set
Document.baseURI where xml:base can at most set
Document.documentElement.baseURI. (Document.baseURI influences how
XMLHttpRequest
On 2 Mar 2007, at 19:25, Keryx Web wrote:
Anne van Kesteren skrev:
I think base should also be allowed in XML documents. It
simplifies the language, it already needs to be supported and
base is able to set Document.baseURI where xml:base can at most
set Document.documentElement.baseURI.
20 matches
Mail list logo
