- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:15:26 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5846 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #3 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2008-07-10 17:15:26 --- > Simplifies passing data to a script inside an embedded SVG graphic or other > embedded document. That's what it does, but what's the use case? Who would use this? Is this a proposal based on something that would directly benefit some site? > Yes. That is one of the important use cases, because it is the one we can't > work around now (scripts in child documents from the same origin could always > investigate the DOM of their parent to find PARAMs) and indeed this use case > was the reason the mailing list thread was started. postMessage() is intended for cross-site communication. > Also, not adding this feature makes <PARAM> useless in cross-domain embedding > scenarios. Having things in the language that aren't always useful isn't a problem. > I think this seems like an oversight in the spec since the author's > intention when specifying PARAMs presumably is to make those parameters > available to the embedded content. We already have this working for plugins > (also cross-domain) but we don't have it for natively supported content. Is there any evidence showing that people actually _do_ specify <param>s for HTML and SVG objects? Marking WONTFIX since there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to do this. Completeness isn't compelling, we have much bigger fish to fry. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 17:16:06 UTC