W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2007

[whatwg] <base> versus xml:base

From: Keryx Web <webmaster@keryx.se>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:16:21 +0100
Message-ID: <45EDBE05.2080208@keryx.se>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:07:03 +0100, Keryx Web <webmaster at keryx.se> wrote:
>> It may be that I've implemented this in the wrong way - corrections 
>> are welcome - but it seems to me that even though <xml:base> is legal 
>> today, it is **not** supported by UAs. Which makes Anne's proposal, 
>> that <base> should be allowed in both serializations, even more 
>> important.
> There's nu such thing as an xml:base element. It's an attribute. And it 
> is supported although there may be some "bugs" with dynamic changes etc.

Oh man! I thought it was strange that it did not work in spite having
been told that it would by several people on the help list...

Well, now all the world knows that I've never before used xml:base in my
coding or teaching. But maybe my error in itself illustrates the value
of letting <base> be allowed in the XML serialization. The element is
known. The attribute is not.

No one has argued against allowing the element. Does that mean we have
reached consensus?

Lars Gunther
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 11:16:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:53 UTC