- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:04:13 -0500
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Fabian Freiburg <f.freiburg at googlemail.com> wrote: > The "base" element is very helpful. Trouble is that it affects all relative > links and "src" attributes. Especially for the "src" attributes it would be > very useful if it could define a context or media type to which it belongs. > With this it would be possible to define a "base" URI fore. g.? images, > javascripts or stylesheets. Furthermore it would be very easy to use a CDN > for serving static media files. Why can't you just use absolute URLs here, or regular relative URLs? If your page is dynamically generated, you can have the script add the appropriate domain to the URLs. If your page is static, then you're most likely hosting it on the CDN too, in which case you can just use normal relative URLs. Extending <base> to handle this seems unnecessarily complicated and fragile.
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 08:04:13 UTC