base href problems

[Jeff Thies]

I have some pages where I need to use a base href tag.

Mac behaviour is different than PC.

I have this:

<base href="http://some_domain.com" />

The page would be: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_page.htm

If I use a relative link:

<a href="some_other_page.htm">some other page</a>

IE5 PC goes here: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_other_page.htm

IE5 Mac goes here:
some_domain.com/some_other_page.htm

Which is correct?

Jeff

[Peter Foti]

"Jeff Thies" <no****@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Tq*******************@newsread1.news.atl.eart hlink.net...

I have some pages where I need to use a base href tag.

Mac behaviour is different than PC.

I have this:

<base href="http://some_domain.com" />

The page would be: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_page.htm

If I use a relative link:

<a href="some_other_page.htm">some other page</a>

IE5 PC goes here: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_other_page.htm

IE5 Mac goes here:
some_domain.com/some_other_page.htm

Which is correct?

According to the spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.4

I would say the Mac version is correct.

Regards,
Peter Foti

[Jukka K. Korpela]

"Jeff Thies" <no****@nospam.net> wrote:

I have some pages where I need to use a base href tag.
No, you don't. You never need to use it. It can always be replaced by
the use of suitable absolute URLs.
Mac behaviour is different than PC.
There are lots of browsers on each platform. Could you give a small
hint of what you mean, like the first letters of the browser names?
<base href="http://some_domain.com" />
There is currently no such domain. It isn't a suitable fictitious
sample either, since it lacks the .example indicator.
The page would be: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_page.htm
What page is that? It's a relative URL, which probably means something
quite different from what you expect.
If I use a relative link:

<a href="some_other_page.htm">some other page</a>

IE5 PC goes here: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_other_page.htm
No, it does not.
IE5 Mac goes here:
some_domain.com/some_other_page.htm
No, it does not.
Which is correct?

Neither. Please post some facts for an analysis, or check the URL
specifications yourself.

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

[Kris]

In article <Tq*******************@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
"Jeff Thies" <no****@nospam.net> wrote:

I have some pages where I need to use a base href tag.

Mac behaviour is different than PC.

I have this:

<base href="http://some_domain.com" />

The page would be: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_page.htm

If I use a relative link:

<a href="some_other_page.htm">some other page</a>

IE5 PC goes here: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_other_page.htm

IE5 Mac goes here:
some_domain.com/some_other_page.htm

Which is correct?

IE Mac. Seems IE5 PC ignores the BASE element for some reason. Try to
find out why, because it normally does not ignore it like that.

--
Kris
kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.

[Stan Brown]

In article <Tq*******************@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net>
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Jeff Thies
<no****@nospam.net> wrote:

I have some pages where I need to use a base href tag.
May one ask why? Often people jump at that as a solution for a
particular problem, when in fact a different solution would be
better.
Mac behaviour is different than PC.
<base href="http://some_domain.com" />
The page would be: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_page.htm If I use a relative link:
<a href="some_other_page.htm">some other page</a>
IE5 PC goes here: some_domain.com/some_directory/some_other_page.htm
IE5 Mac goes here: some_domain.com/some_other_page.htm

Which is correct?

The Mac version. BASE means that any relative URLS should be
resolved relative to that rather than to the actual URL of the page.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Daniel R. Tobias]

Jeff Thies wrote:

I have this:

<base href="http://some_domain.com" />

Well, since domains aren't allowed to have underscores, this can't be an
actual address. (If you want to cite a hypothetical address, you could
use one of the RFC-compliant names allocated for this purpose such as
"example.com", "example.org", "whatever.example", etc.)

I would suggest you include the trailing slash in the URI, as
"http://somedomain.example/"; while it's not mandatory in this case,
there may be some browser bugs in interpreting relative references to a
base URI without the slash. (If it were a URI ending in a subdirectory
name rather than a domain name, the slash would be necessary to cause
the base to be that directory rather than a filename within the
directory one level higher.)

Also, the "/>" ending is valid only in XHTML; if you're using an HTML
doctype, ">" should be used instead.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

I would suggest you include the trailing slash in the URI, as
"http://somedomain.example/"
<pedant>
Actually, that's not _the_ trailing slash: that's the slash which
separates the domain part of the URL from the URLpath part, as in
http://somedomain.example/path/to/whatever

Just that in this case, the URLpath part is null, but you can imagine
it standing there - to the right of this non-trailing slash ;-)

These two URLs, http://somedomain.example/path/to/whatever and
http://somedomain.example/path/to/whatever/ are definitively
different: they differ by the latter having a trailing slash.

But thes URLs, http://somedomain.example and
http://somedomain.example/ are defined to be identical: they
differ only by omitting the slash which separates the domain part from
the URLpath part, and _that_ slash is optional when the URLpath part
is empty.

</pedant>
; while it's not mandatory in this case,
right
there may be some browser bugs in interpreting relative references to a
base URI without the slash.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Just quibbling over terminology.

cheers