> some people feel that this is an appropriate
>use of <BASE>, as did I; others, including people who *really* know HTML,
>think <META HTTP-EQUIV="URI" CONTENT="http://xxx.xxx.xxx/xxx.html"> is more
>appropriate. I tried to get them to make up their minds, but couldn't
>generate sufficient interest.
My pet-peeve: you _don't_ want HTTP-EQUIV: why on earth would you
want it in a HTTP header? Same goes for all the Auhtor stuff and what
have you
> I think <META> is probably the way to go,
Not sure, but if you go META, promote NAME="URI", and keep it in HTML.
All IMHO of course :-)
-- Martijn
Email: m.koster@webcrawler.com
WWW: http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/mak.html