W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2011

[Bug 12828] Client-side Master pages wanted eagerly

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:53:37 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QaAZV-0001YC-4W@jessica.w3.org>

Paul <bpkservice@mail.ru> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WORKSFORME                  |

--- Comment #4 from Paul <bpkservice@mail.ru> 2011-06-24 17:53:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
> satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
> you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
> reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
> Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
> title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
> yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html>.
> Status: Rejected
> Change Description: no spec change
> Rationale: <iframe seamless> solves this. Also, markup ought to be the least of
> your bandwidth worries. :-)

You definitely didn't read the post carefully.
As I mentioned, IFRAME doesn't solve this. IFRAME does the opposite thing: with
IFRAME the host page chooses the content for itself. With master pages the
content page chooses the host for itself.
And IFRAME boundaries are not DOM-transparent.
And IFRAME isn't officially supported in every browser available.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 17:53:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:12 UTC