- From: Igor Minar <iminar@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:04:52 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Jake Archibald <jakearchibald@google.com>
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Igor Minar <iminar@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> > >> wrote: > >> > hey Igor, > >> > > >> > Was just discussing this with Rafael, and it seems like the core issue > >> > you're flagging is that if a document has a <base> element, all > #anchor > >> > navigations (which would otherwise be document relative) are now > >> > full-page > >> > navigations to the URL specified in the <base>, not the document's > >> > "natural" URL. Is that right? > >> > > >> > If so, we might be able give you some control over this in the > >> > Navigation > >> > Controller (although it's not currently scoped as many folks didn't > want > >> > to > >> > contemplate in-document navigation for the time being). > >> > > >> > But perhaps we don't need to do that: is the current behavior the same > >> > across browsers? If it's not, we might be able to change the spec. If > it > >> > is, it'll be harder. > >> > >> I really don't want to add something to the navigation controller > >> specifically for this unless we can show that this is a common use > >> case. > >> > >> Navigation controller is hairy enough as it is without trying to toss > >> in edge cases into it in at least the first version. > >> > >> Igor: I don't quite understand the problem that you are running in to. > >> Can you provide an example which includes URLs of the initial document > >> url, the url that you pass to pushState (including if it's relative or > >> absolute), the value in <base> (again, including if it's relative or > >> absolute). > > > > > > pushState is actually not even needed to reproduce the same problem. It's > > enough when the base[href] doesn't match the url of the current document. > > > > Check out this simple document: > > - code+preview: http://plnkr.co/edit/TtH7rjQVKU6qN0QOxULW?p=preview > > - preview only: http://run.plnkr.co/bY3fF8OOXKq5MrSu/ > > > > pushState is just an easy way how you can get into situation where the > url > > of the current document changes, and base[href] prevents all in-document > > links to resolve correctly. > > I still don't understand how pushState plays into this. it's just an easy way how to get baseURI out of sync with the URI of the current document. as I said before, pushState is not even required to get into this situation. my demo app above proves that. > And the > example doesn't use pushstate so it doesn't help with answering that > question. Note that pushState also should update the page's baseURI. > it doesn't if base[href] is present. and that's the problem for html5 apps but again, the problem is more generic it just happens that html5 apps are the most affected. But yes, <base> can easily mess up all your #foo links. > my point is that it shouldn't. fragment urls should always resolve the the uri of the current document which in all of these cases is different from baseURI. /i > > / Jonas > > >> > >> > >> / Jonas > >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Igor Minar <iminar@google.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> The current url resolution as > >> >> described< > >> >> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#resolving-urls>in > >> >> the spec results in some unhelpful behavior when the following > >> >> combination of web technologies are used in a client-side web app: > >> >> > >> >> - a combination of path-relative urls (<a > >> >> href="relative/url/to/somewhere">link</a>) and fragment/anchor urls > (<a > >> >> href="#anchorUrl">link</a>) > >> >> - history.pushState - used for deep-linking > >> >> - base[href] - used to properly resolve the relative urls to the root > >> >> of > >> >> the application in various deployment environments > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Once history.pushState is used to change location.href, the > >> >> path-relative > >> >> urls resolve correctly as expected against the base[href], but anchor > >> >> urls > >> >> that are only useful if resolved against the current document.baseURI > >> >> also > >> >> unsurprisingly resolve against the base[href]. This behavior makes > them > >> >> unsuitable for this kind of applications which is a big loss in > >> >> developers > >> >> toolbox and in fact breaks existing web features like svg that depend > >> >> on > >> >> anchor urls to reference nodes in the current document. > >> >> > >> >> Does anyone have thoughts on how one could build a client-side app > that > >> >> can > >> >> be deployed in various contexts without any special server-side > >> >> templating > >> >> or build-time pre-processing? > >> >> > >> >> The base element looks like a perfect solution for this, if only it > >> >> didn't > >> >> break anchor urls. > >> >> > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 23:05:40 UTC