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

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:05:20 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001250805m465ee939vd973fb1d1b9387b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It would help to see how the srcdoc and sandboxing would work with ads
> for a
> > customer such as the New York Times.
>
> @srcdoc is not for ads.  For those you would just link to the ad
> source directly with the normal @src attribute, as you don't typically
> have the ads on your server.
>
> ~TJ
>

Adam states that this functionality is for ads, you state it is not.

I have to direct this then at Ian: who was the customer for these changes?
Can someone link the relevant email thread (or threads) related to
establishing the primary use case and customer for these changes?

This isn't an irrelevant question: we cannot judge the technical merit of a
solution, if we don't fully understand the problem being solved. And if the
main conversation for this has occurred in WhatWG, the emails should be
linked here, so that we in the W3C can also do our checking, and verifying
the practicality and usefulness of this change.

Right now, I can't make a comment about technical merit, because I haven't a
clue what problem srcdoc, and evidently sandbox, is solving.

Shelley
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 16:05:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:00 GMT