On Mar 1, 2008, at 10:31 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Saturday 2008-03-01 19:53 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Dynamically changing <base> is a highly unlikely edge case anyway. If
behavior for this case really needs to be specified in detail, then
I think
efficient and readily implementable behavior in the common case is
more
important than getting this relatively small detail right for the
Agreed. However, moving nodes between documents (with different
base URLs) is less of an edge case, and you probably need code that
does pretty much the same thing around to handle that, at which
point it ought to become easy to handle dynamically changing <base>.
Moving nodes between documents is not allowed by the DOM. Technically
you are supposed to use importNode, which makes a copy. Firefox
currently allows it in some cases, and Safari does too in a possibly
different subset of cases for compatibility with the Firefox behavior
on some "enterprise" web apps. It is also not a common practice, so
far as I know. Given fixes to one or two key apps that are popular in
intranet deployment, this extension could probably be removed.
Thus, I'm not sure it is necessary for nodes that are allowed to be
inserted into different documents to have any special different
behavior than they would when removed from and then reinserted into
the same document. We certainly didn't do anything special when
implementing our version of the implicit cross-document adoption quirk
and are not aware of problems. In fact, the one case where we found it
matters it only seemed to be essential for <option> elements freshly
created with 'new Option'.
Regards,
Maciej
