- 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