- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:53:37 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12828 Paul <bpkservice@mail.ru> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WORKSFORME | --- Comment #4 from Paul <bpkservice@mail.ru> 2011-06-24 17:53:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > 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: <iframe seamless> solves this. Also, markup ought to be the least of > your bandwidth worries. :-) You definitely didn't read the post carefully. As I mentioned, IFRAME doesn't solve this. IFRAME does the opposite thing: with IFRAME the host page chooses the content for itself. With master pages the content page chooses the host for itself. And IFRAME boundaries are not DOM-transparent. And IFRAME isn't officially supported in every browser available. -- 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 June 2011 17:53:38 UTC