W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Object and (X)HTML

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:26:44 -0400
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <3E975D44.2226.B6CE0B@localhost>

Arthur Wiebe wrote:

> It sounds good execpt why can't styling or scripting affect the 
> included file?

Well first of all you have made me realize I need to a bit more precise 
with my language here.  I think that embedded file more acurately 
describes what I wanted to say than included file.

Why? Three reasons.

The main reason is it means that styling and scripting have the same 
scope with embedded (X)HTML files as with any other embedded files.  
You can't use scripting or styling to affect for example the color 
pallette of a GIF file.  Trying to allow such abilities for any file 
type would I believe be unworkable.  (Effectivly each file type would 
need its own extension to the DOM.)  I see no justification for 
allowing that level of functionality for an embedded (X)HTML file when 
it is not supported for any other embedded file type.

Second, if such behavior is desired there are other mechanisms to 
include an XML file inside another such as writing the file that way, 
or making the file an included file instead of an embedded file either 
with SSI and XInclude or some other method.  I'm not trying to reinvent 
the wheel with my proposal but to standardize the handling of embedded 
(X)HTML files. Such standardization might even be worth including in 
the errata for HTML 4.01, (And thereby indirectly for XHTML 1.0 and 
XHTML 1.1.)

Thirdly, it certainly simplifies the security model for scripting if 
they can't interact. Granted, the security implications are no worse 
that those for HTML Frames, but if you want frames use frames (or 
XFrames if/when that becomes a standard.)
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2003 00:26:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT