- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:18:13 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > The spec contains this sentence regarding <base>: "A base element, if it > has an href attribute, must come before any other elements in the tree > that have attributes with URIs." > > Is that sentence intended to be merely a statement of the consequence of > the content models of <html> and <head>? If so, it would be nice have > the sentence start with something that labels it as a restatement of > something else. Apparently I've removed the requirement from the content model part, so that it is now a separate and non-redundant requirement. > OTOH, if the sentence itself is meant to have the consequence that > xml:base must not appear on <html>, <head> or <meta charset>, it would > be good to state that consequence explicitly. This is not intended. > As for processing, exempting <base href> from xml:base processing and > saying that <base href> establishes the base RFC 3986 base URI for the > purposes of xml:base means that xml:base on <html>, <head> or <meta > charset> is not disrupted by <base href>. Therefore, the consequence I > speculated about in the previous paragraph seems excessive. (Even in the > case of streaming processing, it would be feasible to defer xml:base > computations until a conforming <base> has been seen.) I assume this is thus not an issue. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 6 June 2008 00:18:53 UTC