- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 02:03:31 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19870 --- Comment #15 from Morrita Hajime <morrita@google.com> --- I agree that <base> could be a good solution here. Let's talk about a bit more details. If we just allow <base> for ShadowDOM as Elliot mentioned, imported-templates-without-shadow scenario isn't resolved, even though it doesn't complicate ShadowRoot API. In my understanding, scoped <base> or <base scoped> is what Steve is suggesting. This is more general and shadow agnostic. This seems reasonable to me. Even though might be too powerful than what we want. I feel XHR and the like are orthogonal points here. Their lack of URL scoping is surely a problem, but it's more on JavaScript side thing than markup thing. Being slightlyoff hat on, we could invent some 'lower-level' primitive which handles URL resolution in browser, thus resolves both of the problem. But I feel it slightly overkill. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 02:03:33 UTC