- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:14:41 -0700
- To: Igor Minar <iminar@google.com>
- 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 4:04 PM, Igor Minar <iminar@google.com> wrote: > > 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. So it sounds like you are saying that: * Pages that use <base href> are affected * Pages that use pushState are affected if they also use <base href> Seems to me like the problem is more with <base href> than with pushState :) >> 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 could see the advantages with that, but it sounds awfully inconsistent. I'm not convinced that everyone that uses <base href> want that. In particular, both <a href> and <base href> are *really* old, so chances are that there are tons of pages out there that use both of them. So the risk of breakage of existing content seems huge. / Jonas > > /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 23:15:36 UTC