- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:35:20 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10709 --- Comment #4 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> 2010-09-24 06:35:19 --- > The sites doing this … often want the content to fit in a fixed rectangle. That's a design antipattern anyways, since it's unsafe to constrain text to a fixed height on the web. But it any case, it seems fairly trivial to apply a fixed height to content transcluded with "seamless". A validator could provide guidance on that point. > their iframe is for partition purposes only and does not have a designated purpose Sorry to be dense, but would you mind explaining how "seamless" would be inappropriate here with the help of a real-world example or two? Whenever "seamless" would not be appropriate, I think authors need to supply an accessible name for the iframe to allow users of screen readers and browsers that do not display iframe content (e.g. typical text browsers) to determine whether to navigate into the iframe contents, as Gregory described, since regardless of visual presentation the iframe is not, in fact, semantically part of the same document. "title" has been the traditional way to do this. Is there any other HTML-native feature you would suggest? If Case (2) is a serious risk, then we could always require "title" for *all* "iframe" elements and specify that it should be ignored when "seamless" is present. This could be better for backwards compatibility anyways. Alternatively, if "seamless" does not cover the use-case of "transparent" iframes, perhaps we need a feature that does? -- 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 Friday, 24 September 2010 06:35:23 UTC