- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:37:21 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10522
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |ian@hixie.ch
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-09-25 19:37:21 ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale:
I actually did consider this while designing this part of the spec.
It would only matter for XHTML. XHTML content is not allowed to have
descendants of <iframe>, and <noframes> and <noembed> are non-conforming
anywhere, especially in XHTML where they have no effect on anything else
either.
I don't see much value therefore in adding code to handle this particular case,
since it would only affect non-conforming XHTML content using obsolete features
that never worked reliably in XML anyway, and it would still not solve the
multitude of other similar issues with those elements (such as form controls
still submitting, etc).
--
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 Saturday, 25 September 2010 19:37:23 UTC