- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:54:20 -0400
- To: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
- Cc: marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:21:56 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > >> I thought he had (somewhat grudgingly) accepted that way (the use of >> relative references) forward, as IIRC, the widget: scheme idea was >> dropped about that time. Has some new requirement emerged since then >> that makes relative references an undesirable option? > > The problem here is that no user agent implementation I am aware of uses > 'relative' URIs when resolving nodes. If you provide <img > src="foo/bar/baz.png" /> - they all compose an absolute URI from the string > representing the relative URI, and expose that when you query for the > attribute value, so putting my markup fragment into a document at the root > of http://example.com/: > > <html> > <img src="foo/bar/baz.png" /> > <script> > // The following Outputs http://example.com/foo/bar/baz.png > alert(document.images[0].src); > </script> Sure. Why is that a problem? Mark.
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 19:55:01 UTC