W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2009

iframe vs object for SVG (was: Re: Param)

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:16:44 +0100
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u4d256gqidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
-public-html
+www-archive

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:38:15 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
wrote:

>> Why would you recommend <iframe> instead of <object>?
>
> <object> has downsides due to the fact that it behaves differently for
> image types, types handled by plugins, and natively handled types that
> form a DOM. Which of these three modes is enabled cannot be properly
> decided until the type of a remote resource is retrieved from the
> server. This tends to cause performance and correctness issues.

The browser can be hinted of the type with the type='' attribute. It might  
turn out to be incorrect, but if it's correct, I'd hope there to be no  
noticeable performance difference.


> <iframe>, which is specialized for containing a natively supported DOM-
> forming document type, tends to work more reliably. It would be my
> first choice to embed either HTML or SVG.

<iframe> has a border by default, and a default size of 300x150 which the  
SVG can't affect. <object> and <img> by default size themselves after the  
SVG, which is a nice feature. <object> and <img> also support fallback  
content for browsers that don't support SVG. SVG in <img> is not supported  
in Firefox yet, though. For these reasons, my first choice would be  
<object> when embedding SVG.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 01:17:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT