W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2003

RE: <base/>, @xml:base

From: Jewett, Jim J <jim.jewett@eds.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:21:58 -0500
Message-ID: <B8CDFB11BB44D411B8E600508BDF076C1A745B90@usahm010.exmi01.exch.eds.com>
To: "'Christian Wolfgang Hujer'" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>, Fastpitch Central - Bill <bill@fastpitchcentral.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org

Christian Wolfgang Hujer:

> I'd really like to see where and how you use <base/> 
> so often.  Could you show me some examples?

It really depends on your circumstances.

If you run the server, and expect all access to be online, 
then you probably don't need it.

On the other hand, if you have several pages that 

(1)  form a sort-of-related site (like a personal homepage), but 
(2)  aren't all hosted at the same location (because of space or 
cgi limits, or even just to ensure that old URLs keep working)

 -- then base is very useful.  

It is a way for the author (instead of just the server owner) to 
provide something like a redirect.  It is also a way to point to 
template objects (MyHomePage, MyRedButton) without 
worrying about where the containing page actually sits.

Base can also be useful if you expect pages to be seen
from somewhere other than your server.  If you're 
distributing documentation, but want people redirected to 
the up-to-date online version, then base is a good solution.  
This is particularly true if the documentation all fits in a 
single page -- then the base won't actually require any web 
hits, but it will document the original source.  (Admittedly, 
it might be better to put the information in the text too.)

> And the next version of XHTML has no <base/> 
> element anymore.  Instead it  relies on XML Base which 
> specifies an @xml:base attribute.

Clarification -- is it safe to assume that you really mean
an xml:base attribute, and the "@" was a redundant 
indication that it was an attribute rather than an
element?  I ask, because the xml:base information I
found is several years old, and I want to be sure I
wasn't looking at an outdated version.

> I haven't heard a single word about wether Internet 
> Explorer will finally support XHTML (beyond parsing 
> text/html sent XHTML 1.0 as tag soup) or not.

Add in a default stylesheet, and what else is really needed?

Nice maybe, but *needed*?  For an interactive browser,
rather than a program or database?

This is a real question, as I'm considering what it would
take for plucker to support xhtml on the palm.

-jJ
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 10:22:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:59 GMT