On 1 Jan 2007, at 16:59, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
Like James Holderness wrote,
Eek! I should keep up with emails better!
the <base> element has no place in an HTML fragment, so its meaning
is (although most browsers wrongfully supports its presence
anywhere in an HTML document) unspecified.
Web Applications 1.0 (keeping with the real world) defines that it
should be moved to HEAD within the DOM tree.
Why, may I ask, MUST (under the RFC 2119 definition) HTML content be
a fragment ("HTML markup within SHOULD be such that it could validly
appear directly within an HTML <DIV> element, after unescaping." -
note the word SHOULD, not MUST, implying that you can have a full
HTML document within)?
The correct base URI to use here is the closest xml:base in the
ancestor vector or the document's base URI.
What's the use case for not using xml:base here?
I don't know - this is just an example of a feed I came across a few
weeks back.
- Geoffrey Sneddon
