- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:05:17 +1200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/7/13 9:52 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > This is obviously non-trivial >> > > And hence won't happen for what some will argue is a niche feature in the > first place. > > Your argument seems to come down to "it's already slightly broken in rare > cases, so it doesn't matter if we break it completely in what we hope will > become the common case", honestly. Maybe you even believe that this is a > reasonable approach... > I don't think we're expecting srcdoc to be the common case for <iframe>, are we? FWIW I agree these are niche features and I agree with Ian that adding another case where the simple implementation is broken is OK. I suspect the main use-case for "Show only this frame" and "open frame in new window" are on sites that are wrapping portals around other sites, and those are rare and won't be using srcdoc. "View frame source" is useful for Web developers and should probably be updated to show the srcdoc text from the parent <iframe> if the URL is about:srcdoc. Rob -- q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqeqmq.q qAqnqdq qiqfq qyqoquq qdqoq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qaqrqeq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qdqoq qtqhqaqtq.q"
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 04:05:45 UTC