Re: <base/>, @xml:base

Hash: SHA1

Hi Jim,

Am Donnerstag, 4. Dezember 2003 16:21 schrieb Jewett, Jim J:
> Christian Wolfgang Hujer:
> > I'd really like to see where and how you use <base/>
> > so often.  Could you show me some examples?
> It really depends on your circumstances.
> If you run the server, and expect all access to be online,
> then you probably don't need it.
Yes, I think so.

> On the other hand, if you have several pages that
> (1)  form a sort-of-related site (like a personal homepage), but
> (2)  aren't all hosted at the same location (because of space or
> cgi limits, or even just to ensure that old URLs keep working)
>  -- then base is very useful.
Okay, (1)'s good. There base and relative relURLs can replace absolute 
(2)'s not the usual case and solvable without <base/>.

> It is a way for the author (instead of just the server owner) to
> provide something like a redirect.  It is also a way to point to
> template objects (MyHomePage, MyRedButton) without
> worrying about where the containing page actually sits.
Well, that's basically what absolute relURLs like /gfx/redButton are for.
Of course, in subsites the situation changes, which is case (1).

> Base can also be useful if you expect pages to be seen
> from somewhere other than your server.  If you're
> distributing documentation, but want people redirected to
> the up-to-date online version, then base is a good solution.
> This is particularly true if the documentation all fits in a
> single page -- then the base won't actually require any web
> hits, but it will document the original source.  (Admittedly,
> it might be better to put the information in the text too.)
> > And the next version of XHTML has no <base/>
> > element anymore.  Instead it  relies on XML Base which
> > specifies an @xml:base attribute.
> Clarification -- is it safe to assume that you really mean
> an xml:base attribute, and the "@" was a redundant
> indication that it was an attribute rather than an
> element?  I ask, because the xml:base information I
> found is several years old, and I want to be sure I
> wasn't looking at an outdated version.
Imho it is convenient to use the XPath syntax for specifying attributes and 
the XML EmptyElemTag syntax to specify elements in discussions.
So @xml:base is an attribute, and @ - or from my point of view the word 
attribute, was redundant.

Afair the character @ cannot be the part of an attribute name, anyway.

> > I haven't heard a single word about wether Internet
> > Explorer will finally support XHTML (beyond parsing
> > text/html sent XHTML 1.0 as tag soup) or not.
> Add in a default stylesheet, and what else is really needed?
> Nice maybe, but *needed*?  For an interactive browser,
> rather than a program or database?
> This is a real question, as I'm considering what it would
> take for plucker to support xhtml on the palm.
Well, how do you tell IE about hyperlinks then, if delivering XHTML as 
application/xml or text/xml? Not that I think it's impossible, I'm just noisy 
wether this is possible via standard CSS, IE supports XLink, IE has its own 
CSS extension or wether JavaScript and / or behaviours are required.
See, I know a bit about Internet Explorer but aren't up to date with recent 
IE-specific development.

- -- 
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter (Shareholding CEO)
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)


Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 12:06:58 UTC