base tag has no effect over <META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh"

[Udi Zisser]

Hello,

any idea why this does not work?
or how do i get this thing to work?

<BASE HREF="http://localhost/thedude/">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=redirect.html">

I'm adding the <base> tag to the content of an existing html that
contains a redirect meta tag.
I cannot edit the file only add new lines at the top. I use the <base>
tag to handle relative urls with in the existing document.

Thanks,
Udi.

[Els]

Udi Zisser wrote:

Hello,
Hi :-)
any idea why this does not work?
or how do i get this thing to work?

<BASE HREF="http://localhost/thedude/">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=redirect.html">
Why it doesn't work:

Base *href*. The basis for all href in the page.
There's no href in that meta element.

How to get it to work? No idea, sorry.
I'm adding the <base> tag to the content of an existing
html that contains a redirect meta tag.
I cannot edit the file only add new lines at the top. I use
the <base> tag to handle relative urls with in the existing
document.

How is it that you cannot edit the file yet can add new lines
at the top?
Get your webdesigner to take out the <meta> ? Who put it in
then?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: The Beatles - Love Me Do

[Harlan Messinger]

Els <el*********@tiscali.nl> wrote:

Udi Zisser wrote:

Hello,
Hi :-)

any idea why this does not work?
or how do i get this thing to work?

<BASE HREF="http://localhost/thedude/">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=redirect.html">

Why it doesn't work:

Base *href*. The basis for all href in the page.

That can't quite be the explanation, because the BASE URL applies to
SRC attributes in IMG tags as well.
There's no href in that meta element.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

[Philip Ronan]

Udi Zisser wrote:

Hello,

any idea why this does not work?
or how do i get this thing to work?

<BASE HREF="http://localhost/thedude/">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=redirect.html">

It might work in *some* browsers, but it isn't valid. The fact is, there is
no HTTP header called "Refresh", so any attempt to emulate it with an HTML
tag is not going to work reliably.

This is what the HTML 4 specification says:

Note. Some user agents support the use of META to refresh the
current page after a specified number of seconds, with the
option of replacing it by a different URI. Authors should not
use this technique to forward users to different pages, as
this makes the page inaccessible to some users. Instead,
automatic page forwarding should be done using server-side
redirects.

So you should use a server-side redirect instead.

--
Philip Ronan
ph***********@virgin.net
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)

[Andreas Prilop]

On 2 Nov 2004, Udi Zisser wrote:

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=redirect.html">

You are not supposed to write this, naughty boy!
Most readers are pissed off by such META refreshes
because we cannot use the back button any more.

If you need to redirect, use HTTP redirects:
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/reback

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Philip Ronan <ph***********@virgin.net> wrote:

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=redirect.html">

It might work in *some* browsers, but it isn't valid.

It is valid. The CONTENT attribute is declated with CDATA content, so
"anything goes".

It's ill-advised and foolish and harmful, but it's surely valid. Use the
word "valid" with caution in HTML context. A validator will not and must
not report the foolishness as an error. (A validator must not even report
an error an error, unless it is a reportable markup error, but that's a
finer point.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:

Base *href*. The basis for all href in the page.

That can't quite be the explanation, because the BASE URL applies to
SRC attributes in IMG tags as well.

And lots of other attributes. In effect, it applies to attributes with
%URI declared content.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Neal]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:30:47 +0000 (UTC), Jukka K. Korpela
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

Philip Ronan <ph***********@virgin.net> wrote:

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=redirect.html">

It might work in *some* browsers, but it isn't valid.

It is valid. The CONTENT attribute is declated with CDATA content, so
"anything goes".

To clarify - it is a valid value for content, but it would not be a valid
HTTP header AFAIK. Though you're far more expert than I in this area,
Jukka.

[Philip Ronan]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=redirect.html">

It might work in *some* browsers, but it isn't valid.

It is valid. The CONTENT attribute is declated with CDATA content, so
"anything goes".

Valid *HTML*, perhaps.

But not a valid approach for redirecting visitors.

--
Philip Ronan
ph***********@virgin.net
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)

[John Dunlop]

Neal wrote:

[regarding META Refresh]

but it would not be a valid HTTP header AFAIK.

I don't see anything in RFC2616 that prohibits it. Although
HTTP/1.1 does not define a Refresh header, it explicitly
allows for new and experimental headers; in particular,
section 6.2 says:

| Response-header field names can be extended reliably only
| in combination with a change in the protocol version.
| However, new or experimental header fields MAY be given
| the semantics of response-header fields if all parties in
| the communication recognize them to be response-header
| fields. Unrecognized header fields are treated as entity-
| header fields.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt

As a rule, it too is 'ill-advised and foolish and harmful'.

Slainte!

--
Jock

[Brian]

John Dunlop wrote:

Neal wrote:

[regarding META Refresh]

but it would not be a valid HTTP header AFAIK.

I don't see anything in RFC2616 that prohibits it. Although HTTP/1.1
does not define a Refresh header, it explicitly allows for new and
experimental headers; in particular, section 6.2 says:

| new or experimental header fields MAY be given
| the semantics of response-header fields if all parties in
| the communication recognize them to be response-header
| fields.

Since there is no "refresh" header, such a header is experimental per
the rfc you quoted, and cannot be relied upon. Indeed, http is
stateless, so how could there be a "refresh" header? This is a client
side function.

Slainte!

And to you!

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)