Re: OBJECT and IFRAME

David Perrell (davidp@earthlink.net)
Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:53:39 -0700


Message-Id: <199709221901.MAA14364@denmark.it.earthlink.net>
From: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:53:39 -0700
Subject: Re: OBJECT and IFRAME

MegaZone wrote:
> IFRAME has 'src' and OBJECT has 'data' - equivalent.
> IFRAME has 'frameborder' and OBJECT has 'border' - can server the same 
> purpose - and is even more flexible.
> 
> That leaves:
>   marginwidth %Pixels;   #IMPLIED  -- margin widths in pixels --
>   marginheight %Pixels;  #IMPLIED  -- margin height in pixels --
>   scrolling (yes|no|auto) auto     -- scrollbar or none --
> 
> hspace and vspace *might* suffice for marginheight and marginwidth.

Marginheight and marginwidth are similar to padding in CSS1, or CELLPADDING in
a table. They add space between the border and the content. The effect is the
same as setting margins on the BODY of the content.
 
> Is there any *real* reason we can't deprecate IFRAME and give OBJECT all
> of its abilities?  I mean *really*?  They are practically the same thing,
> and it seems, from reading the spec, that the only difference is that
> OBJECT doesn't have scrolling controls (which might be nice anyway) and
> it can't be a target for content - and I don't see why not.

Doesn't "deprecate" imply it's already part of the formal spec? IMO, this
element should not be in the spec at all.

Can't all the functionality of IFRAME be had with OBJECT and CSS1/CSS1
Positioning -- even without any change to OBJECT?

Formalizing the IFRAME element seems counterproductive, and it might even be to
MS's advantage to keep it proprietary. It certainly is not in general use, and
its limited functionality is redundant.

David Perrell