W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2012

[whatwg] seamless iframes

From: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:29:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4F7D65F8.1080104@gmx.ch>
Am 05.04.2012 03:59 schrieb Ojan Vafai:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Ojan Vafai<ojan at chromium.org>  wrote:
>
>> 1.  We should add iframe[seamless] { display:block; }.
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#embedded-content-2 already
>> expects iframe:not([seamless]) { border: 2px inset; }. In 90% percent of
>> uses, seamless iframes will not want a border and will want to fill their
>> container. This way, seamless iframes behave roughly like sandboxable divs,
>> which is what web developers want.
>>
>> 2. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#attr-iframe-seamless "In
>> visual media, in a CSS-supporting user agent: the user agent should set the
>> intrinsic width of the iframe to the width that the element would have if
>> it was a non-replaced block-level element with 'width: auto'."
>>
>> This doesn't get the behavior you'd want with cases that need
>> shrink-wrapped behavior. Some cases that need handling:
>> <iframe seamless style="display:inline">
>> <iframe seamless style="display:inline-block">
>> <iframe seamless style="float:left">
>> <iframe seamless style="position:absolute">
>>
>
> 3. The default margin on the body element inside a seamless iframe should
> be 0. Again, this is what 90%+ of uses will expect. We shouldn't require
> everyone using seamless iframes to have to set the body's margin to 0.

As a developer, I am very happy about this suggestion. Please note there 
was a discussion on parts of this topic, starting here:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-July/027011.html

(I am sorry the examples I linked to are not online anymore.)
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 02:29:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:07 GMT