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

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:45:09 +0100
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100115024509808754.900a572a@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Maciej Stachowiak, Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:09:32 -0800:
> On Jan 14, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Joe D Williams, Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:25:26 -0800:
>>>> Joe, you did not answer my question (or perhaps I was unclear): What
>>>> if the <iframe> element resides in a XHTML5 document? Does @doc then
>>>> still only permit text/html content?
>>> 
>>> If what you are asking is can you use <iframe> to import text/html
>>> into a browser-hosted document defined as application/xhtml+xml, then
>>> the imported stuff must obey xml and be in the default document
>>> namespace or parent namespace of the iframe?
>> 
>> May be Maciej should answer what he meant:
>> 
>>>>>> Maciej Stachowiak, Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:52:20 -0800:
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The question still remains... would @doc allow SVG code, for example?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Using SVG-in-HTML, yes (since it assumes a text/html MIME type).
>>>>>>> Using the traditional XML serialization of SVG, no.
>> 
>> In the thread it was said that it would have to be text/html code. But
>> I'll suppose that it was meant that  content of @doc has to have the
>> the same MIME as the parent document.
> 
> I was only answering the question when the containing document is 
> text/html. I did not check what the spec says if the containing 
> document is XML.

I checked (earlier today) and did not find anything under <iframe>, so 
I think Ian is discussing the issue before adding anything - as he 
indicated in his first message. ;-)

> As for what the behavior *should* be, I could see an 
> argument either way.

I don't know. It may be useful to be able to have a text/html section 
inside a XHTML document - is that what you mean? But I suppose one 
would also expect to be able to have a XHTML document in a XHTML 
document? Though, of course, the XHTML doc could be interpreted as 
text/html ... 

As for <iframe> in a text/html document, would the code inside @doc 
have to be a full HTML document, with DOCTYPE and everything, or could 
it be a code fragment (for which the UA would generate the full DOM - 
presumably) ? Would the code iniside @doc be validated?
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 01:45:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC