Closed Bug 505783 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago
Setting dynamically xml:base for XHTML elements has no effect in HTML documents
395 bytes, text/html
1.04 KB, patch
|Details | Diff | Splinter Review|
1.77 KB, patch
|Details | Diff | Splinter Review|
Setting the xml:base attribute on an XML (including XHTML) element changes the base URI of the element, but Mozilla now ignores xml:base if the elements is an XHTML element and the document is an HTML document (served as text/html). See the attachment to reproduce this. Expected: http://example.org/ http://example.org/foo Actual: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=nnn https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/foo This is a regression. Firefox 3.5 and older works as expected. This breaks resolving-relative-URIs techniques  and some Greasemonkey scripts that use the techniques  .  http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=createElementNS+setAttributeNS+xml%3Abase+file%3A\.js%24  http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/8551  http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/22702
I suppose we could enable xml:base in HTML too :( I'm not a big fan of xml:base in general since I think it's somewhat over complicated, but if people really use it that seems like a reasonable solution.
IIRC, HTML5/Hixie says that script-inserted xml:base in HTML documents should work.
Assignee: nobody → hsivonen
Isn't this just a matter of this code in nsGenericHTMLElement::GetBaseURI() bailing out early? Do we need to make sure to fix this in 1.9.2, if this is breaking real things out there? We could just take out the early-bail and see what happens, perf-wise, I suppose... Maybe we should flag nodes that have an ancestor with xml:base set, so that we can fast-path all the other (common!) cases?
Need to get some perf numbers for this.
Comment on attachment 394261 [details] [diff] [review] Don't make xml:base special in HTML Looks OK on tryserver talos.
Attachment #394261 - Flags: review?(jonas)
Attachment #394261 - Flags: review?(jonas) → review+
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/50c82c606fcd Are the flags on this bug now right for 3.6 approval consideration?
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Is this really important enough for 1.9.2? Seems very much like an edgecase. If you think we need it you need to set the approval 1.9.2? flag on the patch.
Comment on attachment 394261 [details] [diff] [review] Don't make xml:base special in HTML This is unlikely to matter for Web compat. However, not having this patch in 1.9.2 could break Greasemonkey scripts or extensions as stated in the bug description.
Attachment #394261 - Flags: approval1.9.2?
Comment on attachment 394261 [details] [diff] [review] Don't make xml:base special in HTML I can't imagine taking this on branch without a test (and it should have a test anyway, no?)
Could this bug get branch approval with this test case, please?
Attachment #404235 - Flags: review?(jonas)
Comment on attachment 404235 [details] [diff] [review] Mochitest Could you *also* test that things work if the <a> is inserted into the document. r=me with that
Attachment #404235 - Flags: review?(jonas) → review+
Comment on attachment 394261 [details] [diff] [review] Don't make xml:base special in HTML a=sicking with the testcase once fixed per above comment.
Attachment #394261 - Flags: approval1.9.2? → approval1.9.2+
Test pushed with additional in-document check: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1470fa9c9f01 Pushed to branch: http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/aa636984cd78 Thanks!
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.