W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2008

RE: [whatwg] The <iframe> element and sandboxing ideas

From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:59:32 +0200
To: "'Mike Ter Louw'" <mtl@uic.edu>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: <public-webapi@w3.org>, "'whatwg'" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "'HTMLWG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E39AEE6B5C164BFD8D03C395F7C6F1E7@POCZTOWIEC>

For the record: 
Microsoft HTML engine supports the following syntax: 
IFRAME src="about:<HTML >.</HTML >".

-----Original Message-----
From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Mike Ter Louw
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:42 PM
To: Ian Hickson
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org; whatwg; HTMLWG
Subject: Re: [whatwg] The <iframe> element and sandboxing ideas

Ian Hickson wrote:
> This isn't very readable, I'll grant you. I'm thinking of introducing a 
> new attribute. I haven't worked out what to call it yet, but definitely 
> not "src", "source", "src2", "content", "value", or "data" -- maybe 
> "html" or "doc", though neither of those are great. This attribute would 
> take a string which would then be interpreted as the source document 
> markup of an HTML document, much like the above; it would override src="" 
> if it was present, allowing src="" to be used for legacy UAs:

This new attribute, along with some form of content encoding (e.g., data 
URI scheme), could be very important to the usefulness of the seamless 
and sandbox attributes in some applications.  Is the hold up just 
indecision about naming?  How about "text" or "document"?

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 08:05:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:33 UTC