W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > January 2012

Re: [Off-topic] HTML 4.01 and the IFRAME element

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:50:51 +0000
Message-ID: <4F0CB2BB.3000809@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
CC: www-validator-css@w3.org


Jukka Korpela wrote:

> I don't think it's off-topic. The answer is that IFRAME is also accepted
> in HTML 4.01 Transitional. It is not allowed in HTML 4.01 Strict, which
> is somewhat odd

Yes, that is what was throwing me.  I use Strict as a matter of
course, and completely forgot (or never knew) that Transitional
was more accepting in this respect.  Of course, I don't want
Transitional's leniency (I like to be warned of any deprecated
usages), but short of using a custom DTD it looks as if I am
stuck with Transitional for this project now that I need to
start replacing whole pages of text in an efficient manner.

> (and IFRAME is a respected citizen in HTML5 drafts), but
> _this_ is off-topic (it's up to the people who defined the DTD). In HTML
> 4.01 Strict, you can use OBJECT instead, but it's not quite the same
> (most importantly, you cannot use the TARGET attribute to open a link in
> an embedded OBJECT element as you can do for IFRAME).

Not the last worried about TARGET, Jukka, but are there any
other nasties waiting to bite me if I switch to <OBJECT> ?
I already seem to have hit one nasty using IFRAME (a complete
show-stopper, in fact) : my JavaScript DOM-walker doesn't
seem able to recurse inside the IFRAME  -- is this, too, to
be expected, do you know ?

Philip Taylor
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:19:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 June 2012 00:14:29 GMT