- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:19:40 +0200
- To: "Henrik Dvergsdal" <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:55:04 +0200, Henrik Dvergsdal
<henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no> wrote:
> I wonder if this restriction is really necessary. Why not deprecate
> <base> and replace it with a "base" attribute that sets the base for an
> element and all its children? Could even be cascading in the sense that
> it could be possible to specify the base of a child relative to the
> parent base.
1. We need to support <base> anyway.
2. Authors know <base>.
3. Implementing something like base= dynamically costs a lot.
(As far as I know we still have issues with xml:base because of that.)
4. <base> also has a target= attribute.
Furthermore, the use case you gave is not at all the use case for <base>.
<base> is there in case you move a site to a different location and want
to keep the links working. (Google cache would be an example of
appropriate usage.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 10:19:55 UTC