- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:18:10 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14884 --- Comment #3 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2011-11-20 16:18:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > More specifically, why is it not acceptable to use frames, iframes, javascript, > or server-side includes to solve the use-case? Frames are deprecated and can not be styled suffiently (AFAIU). IFrames may be suffient once there's support for @seamless. Javascript: if this would be a sufficient argument, we could do remove lots of other stuff as well :-) Server-side includes have several disadvantages: you need server-side processing (doen't work for static files), and essentially you create aggregate resources which can't be as easily maintained/cached as individual resources. -- 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 Sunday, 20 November 2011 16:18:12 UTC