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 15:04:55 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001251304j3788a24akf84737eb2e959db8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> I'm not sure how markup in attributes is any worse than a data url,
>> which contains precisely the same data and is in an attribute.  The
>> only difference is the name of the attribute and the escaping
>> requirements.  (There are a few practical differences between how data
>> urls currently work and how @srcdoc works that can be significant, but
>> they're not relevant to this particular concern of yours.)
>> ...
>>
>
> Well, data URIs are already there, while srcdoc would be a new attribute,
> and we've been told by the editor that each new attribute in HTML costs
> around 1 billion dollars in
> specifying/implementing/deploying/documenting/teaching.
>
>
Wow.

Well my change proposals I'll be putting out in March will probably save
enough to cover the US national debt.

Darn, I'm good.


> Furthermore, the data: URI scheme allows you to specify the mime type, so
> the HTML vs XHTML question is already answered.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

Shelley
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 21:05:30 GMT

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