W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [ OT ] properties 'base' and 'offset'

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:35:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4697E21E.2030307@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

Dmitry Turin wrote:
> Let we have documents on one site, locations of which are specified in example below,
> and let documents have different links (they are also specified in example)
>   /path/x1.htm                     <a href="./m/n/x2.htm">
>   /path/m/n/x2.htm                 <a href="../../x1.htm">
> Imagine, that we move part of site to other server,

This is generally discouraged, as it leads to link rot.  You have to 
consider that the World Wide Web only exists to the extent that 
documents controlled by different people can link to each other.  If you 
are forced to move a document, the correct approach is to have the 
original server return HTTP permanent redirects to the new location.

> 
> .partB-of-site {                              /*** for site1.com ***/
>   offset: site1.com/path1 site2.com/path2;
> }

This definitely has no place in CSS.  It's borderline whether it belongs 
in HTML, although there is already the precedent in the BASE *element*. 
  It's really page metadata, that, arguably, belongs at the HTTP level, 
and, as I noted above, is most properly implemented in the server 
metadata, against the target name, rather than against the referring 
resource.

I think this is so clearly an inappropriate use of CSS that I have 
tagged the thread off topic.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Friday, 13 July 2007 20:35:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:51 GMT