- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:12:38 -0500
- To: Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Henrik Dvergsdal wrote: > I can see how <base> is cheaper than xml:base because > of problems related to reordering of nodes in the DOM tree. But, apart > from that, won't we have excactly the same problems with the current > <base> element? The main performance issues come from base URI changes as nodes are moved in the DOM. That problem does not exist with <base>. > Furthermore xml:base seems to be a "normative part" of the spec already. > Does this mean that we have a base attribute? - at least in the XML > serialization Effectively, yes. Although you'll note that Firefox doesn't implement xml:base for XHTML... largely because we haven't figured out a good way to make it performant enough. > And finally: Why must the <base> element occur only "In a head element, > after the meta element with the charset attribute, if any, but before > any other elements"? Does the sequencing of the elements in <head> > really matter? Of course. The <meta> comes first so the least amount of effort is wasted when you throw everything away and start parsing in the new encoding. The <base> comes before anything with a URI attribute so you don't have to cancel a bunch of loads and start new ones. Or worse yet, so you don't execute the wrong things, in the case of <script src="">. -Boris
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 07:12:55 UTC