W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:15:48 -0500
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u6jbomnc1ejg13@sandra-svwliu01>
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:35:30 -0500, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> I don't understand how you can assume that the destination of the doc  
>>> URL is going to be text/HTML?  Why couldn't the iFrame be pointing to  
>>> an SVG image, for example, or a PDF?  Those are also valid (and in the  
>>> latter case of PDF, quite common) things one would put in an iFrame  
>>> and wish to refer to...
>>
>> @doc doesn't take a url, it takes literal html code (with quotes
>> escaped).  It is intended to help with the use of multiple <iframe>s
>> on a page, especially @sandbox'd ones, so that you don't incur
>> multiple network requests but still get the security benefits of
>> framing the content such as blog comments.
>>
>> ~TJ
>>
>>
>
> Why call it @doc and not @html then? My first reaction to @doc was -
> "what? we're pointing to word documents?".
> Silvia.

I agree. @html makes more sense.


-- 
Michael
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 18:16:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT