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

(unknown charset) Re: <iframe doc="">

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:32:11 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: (unknown charset) "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100125223211390654.5e4c5d99@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Julian Reschke, Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:28:56 +0100:
> 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.
> 
> Furthermore, the data: URI scheme allows you to specify the mime 
> type, so the HTML vs XHTML question is already answered.

+1 

Sounds very convincing to me. We don't need to invent @srcdoc just 
because we can.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 21:32:45 GMT

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