Re: Question on BASE

James Aylett (sleeper@cryogen.com)
Thu, 30 Jan 1997 03:33:39 +0000 (GMT)


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 03:33:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: James Aylett <sleeper@cryogen.com>
To: Joe English <joe@trystero.art.com>
cc: www-html@www10.w3.org
Subject: Re: Question on BASE
In-Reply-To: <9701300302.AA29302@trystero.art.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.970130032647.6543B-100000@crystal.clare.cam.ac.uk>

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Joe English wrote:

> MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to use <BASE TARGET="_top"> on my pages to prevent people from
> > including them as content in their frames - deliberately or accidently.
> >
> > 2 issues - TARGET isn't defined and HREF is required.
> >
> > So, the latter first.  'HREF="./"' should be fine - correct?
> 
> 
> Nope -- the BASE element's HREF attribute has to be an
> absolute URL, and "./" is a relative URL.

That's no reason to include the true BASE HREF (which is generally a good
thing anyway) along with the TARGET attribute. However since no one seems
to have agreed on how to implement frames properly in HTML, might it not
be better to use something like the META HTTP-EQUIV (?) attribute to
prompt a refresh after no time to break out of the frames until this has
all been sorted out? Granted this is far from ideal, since it causes two
connection-request-response cycles, which might be considered bad on slow
links. Since any extension such as <BASE TARGET="..."> would require
acceptance by vendors, either this or a 'break out' button such as is
currently present on many sites seems the best way.

I guess I'm trying to say that we should be sorting out the frames
implementation before suggesting how to play around with it to the browser
vendors. Does anyone agree with me, or are we all framoholics?

James

-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  James Aylett - Crystal Services (crystal.clare.cam.ac.uk): BBS, Ftp and Web
   Clare College, Cambridge, CB2 1TL -- sleeper@cryogen.com -- (0976) 212023