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 15:56:02 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001251356r2aa2ae41u1c299b394daaac1a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <
xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> 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
>

I agree with both Leif and Julian, in that I don't believe a good argument
has been given justifying this new attribute.

Shelley
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 21:56:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC