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

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:58:24 -0500
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "public-html WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u6o27mwr1ejg13@sandra-svwliu01>
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 04:07:15 -0500, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> 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).

OK, cool.

-- 
Michael
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 20:58:58 UTC

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