>On Oct 20, 2005, at 8:23 AM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>
>>> I am not sure. I for one would vote for it not being included. I
>>> removed
>>> it due to problems it was causing IE (IE expects a fully qualified
>>> url).
>>>
>>
>> We experienced the same problem.
>
>Ok, good to know. It was an experimental optimization in the amount
>of HTML produced - given that every href attribute on a given Seaside
>page is nearly identical, and often quite long, I was curious if I
>could specify the base URL once to remove some of the commonality.
>So does IE just not support that tag at all?
Thank you for all the responses. The base tag's effect on IE was exactly
the reason why I asked this (not so quick it seems) question to start
with. We also had problems with IE and I wasn't sure whether the base
tag was included for any other reason than to sorthen the URL. Now that
I know it is safe to remove it, I will.
Also I do not think it is a case of IE not supporting the tag at all. IE
just expects a fully qualified url. It also seems that no matter what I
make the value of the base tag, all the other browsers carry on as if
nothing happened. Either the other browsers are ignoring the tag and
working just on the href, or they can somehow magically figure out the
destination from any base tag value.
Mart-Mari
|
