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

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:07:15 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001170905220.3759@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:07:26 -0500, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> > > 
> > > However, I still like the idea of explicitly specifying full markup 
> > > for the embedded doc like you can with src="data:". I also like 
> > > being able to do src="data:application/xml," in text/html pages.
> > 
> > The doc="" idea certainly wouldn't preclude using data: URIs with 
> > src="".
> 
> Understood. It just seems like @doc should/could have *almost* the same 
> capabilities.

One of the main reasons for considering doc="" is making it simple, so I 
don't know if we really want to add too much power here (there's usually a 
direct correlation between power and complexity, and an inverse 
correlation between power and ease of use). Unless there's really a strong 
use case, I'd rather leave the less common cases to the existing data: 
mechanism, which has been shown to work (albeit with the corresponding 
loss of ease of use).

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 09:07:44 GMT

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