W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Relative links in seamless iframes

From: Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:37:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGxST9knpUhLEEnUQ=-ntTvC08aRWiJN=TXtNQXXOv_se1xt7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org LIST" <public-html@w3.org>
> can't you just find the parent document's base URI and add a new base URI
tag to the child document ...
It would be better to set it from the beginning, otherwise it would be a
little difficult to change all relative URI after having changed the base.
However, I reflected on this and it can be worked around quite easily using
root-relative URIs (/foo/bar.html)

About your consideration, yes, actually there are aspects in which a
seamless iframe will never merge with its container. More so, current spec
is already too difficult for UAs to complain, as @seamless is still
completely unimplemented.

2015-04-07 8:31 GMT+02:00 Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>:

>  This is an interesting proposal, but I think that making baseURI's
> seamless as well starts to go beyond the scope of what seamless should make
> possible. As far as I can imagine a variety of document-centric behaviors
> should still be preserved, including:
>
> * event bubbling (constrained)
>
> * selection/focus management (constrained)
>
> * form submission and form pointers (constrained)
>
> etc.
>
>
>  If we allow some DOM behaviors for base URI that it opens up the larger
> question of where do we draw the line with others?
>
>
>  And for a workaround, can't you just find the parent document's base URI
> and add a new base URI tag to the child document to get the same base URI?
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>  *From:* Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 5, 2015 12:47 PM
> *To:* public-html@w3.org LIST
> *Subject:* Relative links in seamless iframes
>
>  Looking at the spec, it is clear that iframes in seamless mode must act,
> if possible, as part of the document containing their nested browsing
> context.
> One thing is missing, though. The base URL to resolve relative URL in
> links of nested browsing contexts, as well as embedded resources throughout
> the nested browsing context's document, is obtained in relation with nested
> document.
> Wouldn't it be possible to set base URL for nested document using
> container document's base URL? It should be possible at least in case the
> container has a frozen base URL and the nested document hasn't.
>
>  I was writing a JS snippet capable of using pushState along with a query
> string for keeping track of iframe navigation. This script appends a query
> parameter in the form of "iframe_name=iframe_document_relativeURI" to the
> address of the page, so that the URI can keep track of the current page
> state. This is primarily for link sharing, but anyway the src attribute is
> updated server-side for possible reuses (e.g. sitewide link mapping). The
> problem is, nested page sets the querystring using relative URL of the link
> for site navigation, and relative URLs rely upon nested document's base
> URL. If for any reason container and nested documents' bases do not
> coincide (e.g. the nested document is specified by a file in a different
> directory), URL retrieval is not possible (of course I currently solve the
> problem using a consistent sitewide <base> element so that all relative
> URIs are resolved according to the same base).
>
>  Are there any technical issues in doing that? Also consider that there
> would be no backward compatibility issue, as no browser currently
> implements @seamless.
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 09:38:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:43 UTC