Created attachment 8761210 [details] bug.txt User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:46.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/46.0 Build ID: 20160502172042 Steps to reproduce: Clicked an internal link (<a href="#m_-8912122876563913334_1" ... ) on page which had a <base> tag in its header. (<base href="https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1tr54oypn5vq9/">) Actual results: The browser moved to the page specified in the base tag (a different page). I noticed that when I hovered over the link, the URL was constructed using the URL in the base tag, as if it were a local link rather than an internal one. Expected results: The browser should have moved to the corresponding anchor on the same page. (<a name="m_-8912122876563913334_1" ... )
> The browser moved to the page specified in the base tag (a different page). Yes, that's the correct behavior per spec and I believe interoperably implemented across all browsers...
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
This is not correct, and is not the behaviour when the same page is tested on Internet Explorer. The standard states: When present, the BASE element must appear in the HEAD section of an HTML document, before any element that refers to an external source. (https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.4) Note this only refers to elements with an *external* source. An link to an anchor on the same page does not refer to an external source. If this is the behaviour per Firefox spec, then the Firefox spec implements the HTML standard wrongly.
That spec is obsolete. You should be reading this: https://w3c.github.io/html/single-page.html#dynamic-changes-to-base-urls
OK, I'm convinced! Thanks for taking the trouble. Now attempting to report as a bug to Google...
I hope you mean Microsoft, if you're reporting the Internet Explorer bug...
I don't really use Explorer, and I'm not sure what it's doing. It might be more of a tolerance than a bug. The page you referred me didn't strike me as a model of clarity, and it's a changed behaviour which might break many old pages, so perhaps Explorer has a heuristic to interpret it either way, depending. No, I meant reporting the faulty construction of conversation pages in Gmail. IF it gets fixed and IF that then breaks Gmail in Explorer, someone may report it. Unlikely to be me, though. I also now tested in Chrome, which behaves the same way as Firefox. So Gmail doesn't work properly in Chrome. That might convince them it's a bug!
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.